The Facts

District Attorney Brooke Jenkins’ office has pursued blanket boycotts of Judge Michelle Tong since early 2025, renewing its effort when she returned to criminal court. Prosecutors initially accused Tong of incompetence; in the renewed boycott, they alleged bias against police and prosecutors, including an alleged threat to “get even” with one prosecutor when she was a public defender.

Now, the DA's office can no longer continue that blanket boycott: on October 8, Presiding Judge Rochelle East rejected the blanket challenges as bad faith, reports Frankie Solinsky Duryea at Mission Local. East had allowed the boycott on October 6, but changed her decision after reviewing additional evidence. Individual prosecutors may still object; Jenkins’ office withdrew its remaining challenges.

The Context

“Presiding judge” is a formal leadership role: East oversees court operations, including assigning judges and distributing cases.

California law generally lets each side remove one judge per case by declaring prejudice under oath, without proving bias. Repeated across cases, those challenges can sideline a judge. The California Supreme Court’s May 28 decision allows courts to investigate whether blanket challenges are made in bad faith.

The GrowSF Take

Prosecutors and defendants both deserve an impartial judge. Credible evidence of bias against an entire prosecutor’s office could justify an office-wide challenge; individual objections might not adequately address that problem. But blanket boycotts also give prosecutors enormous power to sideline judges whose decisions they dislike. We’re not endorsing Tong’s record, and we support judicial accountability through elections. Any renewed office-wide challenge should require evidence of office-wide bias, not simply dissatisfaction with a judge’s rulings.