Progressive city shockingly dismisses cases against over 70 criminals including sex pests and domestic abusers

Victims say they are devastated by the shock that a San Francisco court has caused by dismissing more than 70 cases against those accused of domestic violence, sex crimes and drunken driving.

The crisis this week arose from a July ruling in which a defendant successfully argued that his constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated by delays caused by COVID-19, a ruling that was subsequently applied to other pending cases.

The Supreme Court blamed the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office for the delays, saying it was not their “responsibility to manage the court’s workload.”

For Melissa Bonilla, an alleged victim of domestic violence, the decision marks the end of a two-year quest for justice, a time when she was in shock before her case even came to trial.

“Very frustrated because it’s been two years of waiting for this and then one day it’s over. I’m in shock right now,” she said ABC7News.

Melissa Bonilla, an alleged domestic violence victim, said she was “in shock” because her case was one of 74 dismissed before ever going to trial because of the backlog of COVID-19 cases.

Bonilla’s case was one of 74 dismissed this week on a formality, leaving some alleged victims and their supporters heartbroken.

Anastacio White, who was in court to support a victim, told ABC7 she was shocked by the measure and felt it was “not fair” for criminals to go free.

“It could be a bank robber, a rapist, a child molester, whatever, you just get fired,” she said.

Each of the 74 defendants was charged with drunken driving, assault and deadly driving, among other offenses, between early 2022 and April 2024. They benefited from the huge number of cases that had been left in court during the pandemic.

The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office said it had raised the issue several times before, but defended its decision to dismiss the cases this week, blaming court mismanagement.

“Our clients have a constitutional right, just like the victims,” said District Attorney Jacque Wilson.

Critics specifically pointed to mismanagement at San Francisco's courthouse (pictured), saying it has failed

Critics specifically pointed to mismanagement at San Francisco’s courthouse (pictured), saying it has failed “unlike other counties” to handle its COVID-19 caseload.

And it was our clients’ rights that were violated time and time again and time again.

‘There were half a dozen victims who spoke and as a public defender we obviously do not abandon our humanity for those who feel like victims.

San Francisco Public Defender Jacque Wilson said he

San Francisco Public Defender Jacque Wilson said he “felt sympathy” for the victims but stressed that “my job is to protect the rights” of the defendants

“I felt for them. Ultimately, it is the courts and the Public Prosecution Service that have to protect their rights. Ultimately, it is my job to protect the rights of our clients.”

The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office issued a scathing statement after the ruling, criticizing the Supreme Court for failing to handle the cases.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling, unlike courts in other districts in the post-COVID era that have worked through case backlogs, has unfortunately disenfranchised victims and deprived defendants of their rights,” the statement said.

‘It is not the responsibility of the Public Prosecution Service to manage the workload of the court.’

But the Public Prosecution Service was the one blamed by Supreme Court Judge Anne-Christine Massulo when she made the decision this week to dismiss the 74 cases, referring to the original ruling from July.

She said at the time: ‘We hope that the Public Prosecution Service will prioritize the cases appropriately so that justice can be done.’

Judge Anne-Christine Massulo (pictured) criticized the Public Prosecution Service in its ruling and said she hopes that in the future it will

Judge Anne-Christine Massulo (pictured) criticized the Public Prosecution Service in its ruling and said she hopes that in the future it will “prioritize cases appropriately so that justice can be done.”

Prithika Balakrishnan, a law professor at UC Law SF, told ABC7 that she believes the reason many alleged victims will never get justice is because of the Supreme Court. She believes it’s “a situation where the courts have maneuvered themselves into.”

“San Francisco has made no attempt to recover from COVID and bring these cases to trial, despite having open courtrooms and even civil cases taking up the courtroom,” she said.

For alleged victims like Bonilla, the decision marks the end of a painful ordeal within a system that was supposed to help her.

“It’s really bad because many victims of domestic violence need representation and support because we don’t think it’s right,” she concluded.