Victims of domestic abuse, deadly driving and other crimes expressed dismay Thursday as dozens of suspects had their cases dismissed due to a backlog of trials that exceeded legal deadlines.
A total of 70 cases were dropped by the San Francisco Superior Court, following a July appellate court ruling that delayed trials violated defendants’ constitutional rights. The dismissed cases included a driver who faced two counts of vehicular manslaughter for allegedly causing a crash that killed a mother and daughter who were visiting the city from Florida.
Wayne Henderson, who was injured in the May 2022 crash that killed his wife, Mary, and daughter Willa, said victims like him were being deprived of justice.
“I am a victim who survived, though only in a manner of speaking. I have lost my wife and my daughter,” he said in a statement that was read aloud by a victim advocate. “I am the one left with little but the sorrow, the anger, the pictures, the memories. But I know I am not the only one. We, the victims of these crimes, are being denied our moment of accountability, our day in court to see and hear the defendant answer for his misconduct,” Henderson said.
Prosecutors charged Michael Dennehy with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter for allegedly making an illegal right turn from a center lane, clipping a taxi, which then struck the Henderson family on a sidewalk in the SoMa neighborhood.
“What is both unbelievable and appalling is that Mr. Dennehy is now on the verge of having the case dismissed, simply walking away and avoiding entirely his day in court,” Henderson said in a victim impact statement read to the court.
One victim, whose ex-husband was charged with domestic violence, wrote: “To say that this is unjust would be an understatement.”
She described her reluctance to become involved with a criminal investigation after a harrowing incident in which her ex-husband threatened her with a knife and her disappointment that the case has unraveled.
“When I agreed to cooperate with the DA’s office, there were many times I wanted to give up because this was so triggering. But I decided to stick with it because I believed it was right. And I believed that the state would support me and bring some sort of justice to what had happened. Instead, I have been failed,” she said. “You have triggered and re-traumatized me over the past year and a half for nothing. I will not get a day in court, and my ex-husband gets to walk away, knowing what he did and thinking he could do it again.”
Both the district attorney’s office and public defender’s office laid the blame at the foot of the court, stating that the court should have made time to hear the cases.
Judge Anne-Christine Massullo acknowledged the victims’ pain in a statement. But despite the emotional pleas, Massullo said she was bound by the appellate court’s ruling.
“Today, I also heard from the affected victims in some of these cases. Their statements were very moving and this court honors their bravery in coming forward,” she said in a statement before firing back at the DA’s office. “In the future, we hope that the district attorney’s office will prioritize cases appropriately so that justice can be served.”
But District Attorney Brooke Jenkins later released a statement, again blaming the court.
“It is not the responsibility of the district attorney’s office to manage the court’s caseload,” Jenkins said in the statement. “Any insinuation by the court that our office should resolve cases irresponsibly in order to help the court manage its caseload is injudicious, misplaced, and improper.”
The case that opened the floodgates for the mass dismissal was the October 2021 arrest of a San Francisco woman, Lynette Mendoza, for suspected drunk driving. She was handed a March 2023 court date, but Superior Court judges postponed her case six times throughout the following year, citing a backlog of cases brought on by the pandemic, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. Mendoza sued, and after a series of appeals, an appellate court ruled in July that the court violated her constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Jacque Wilson, a manager in the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office misdemeanor unit, suggested the number of cases dismissed should have been higher.
“It should have been hundreds, if not thousands of more cases dismissed,” Wilson said, explaining that many defendants pleaded guilty because they couldn’t keep returning to court over extended periods. “A lot of our clients have their constitutional rights violated. They have a right to a speedy trial.”
The district attorney’s office said it would work to notify victims of the dismissals and inform them of any remaining protective orders. The public defender’s office indicated it would file motions to seal arrest records in the dismissed cases.