Skip to main content
Criminal Justice

Brooke Jenkins Swears She Did Not Violate Ethics in Case Involving Family Member’s Killing

Written by Jonah Owen LambPublished Nov. 07, 2022 • 6:30pm
Yali Corea-Levy, the deputy public defender representing Sincere Pomar, speaks to family and friends of the defendant. | Jonah Lamb/The Standard

English

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins swore under oath that she did not violate any ethical rules in a murder case where the victim was a member of her family, a filing obtained by The Standard shows. 

The case—one of two in which Jenkins has a conflict of interest—involves the alleged killers of 18-year-old Jerome Mallory, her husband’s cousin.

“I have never breached the ethical wall in this case,” Jenkins said in a sworn declaration filed in the case. “I have never accessed any district attorney files, papers or electronic, or investigative files, and did not direct the investigation of this case in any way or attempt to influence the production of this case.” 

The attorneys for two men accused of killing Mallory—Stevie Mitchell and Sincere Pomar—have argued that Jenkins’ office should not be allowed to prosecute the case, as previous public statements made by her make it impossible for their clients to have a fair trial.

Since then, California Attorney General Rob Bonta has weighed in, arguing that the existing ethical walls—systems in place that limit Jenkins’ personal interactions with the case—erected before and after Jenkins took office, are sufficient for fair trials.

Now, defense attorneys have filed a recusal motion, asking a judge to make the final decision on who handles the case.

After Jenkins left the District Attorney’s Office in October 2021, she began working to oust her former boss Chesa Boudin, in a successful June recall campaign. In that time, she made public statements about how she thought that Boudin was not handling the Mallory case appropriately.

District Attorney Brooke Jenkins leaves a press conference on Friday, Oct. 28. | Benjamin Fanjoy/The Standard

Pam Herzig, who is representing Mitchell, said in court Monday that the central issue is the public statements Jenkins made about the case after she left the DA’s Office. 

See Also

“The court can’t take her at her word,” said Herzig about Jenkins’ declaration. 

A lawyer for the Attorney General’s Office argued to the court that defense attorneys require proof via declaration that ethical walls were breached, not simply public statements made by Jenkins.

Judge Christopher Hite said he plans to make a ruling on the recusal motion on Nov. 15.

English

Jonah Owen Lamb can be reached at [email protected]


Bay Area People Lost $6.8M to Scammers This Year Already as ‘Pig Butchering’ Rises

Bay Area People Lost $6.8M to Scammers This Year Already as ‘Pig Butchering’ Rises


‘Whitewashing’  Fears as SFPD Reality TV Show Producer Made Films for the CIA

‘Whitewashing’ Fears as SFPD Reality TV Show Producer Made Films for the CIA


Hundreds of SF Cops Cleared in State’s Sweeping Review of Psych Exams

Hundreds of SF Cops Cleared in State’s Sweeping Review of Psych Exams


Conflict May Get DA Pulled Off Case Involving SF Mayor’s Brother

Conflict May Get DA Pulled Off Case Involving SF Mayor’s Brother


100 Cars Block Bay Bridge in Huge Illegal Sideshow

100 Cars Block Bay Bridge in Huge Illegal Sideshow


Stay on top of what’s happening in your city

SF’s most important stories, delivered straight to your inbox



By clicking Subscribe you confirm you have read and agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge our Privacy Policy