SAN JOSE — Incensed by the release of defendants charged in recent attacks on police officers, San Jose’s police union is calling on prosecutors to move cases away from a superior court judge who handles a large portion of criminal arraignments in Santa Clara County.
In a letter sent this week to District Attorney Jeff Rosen, the San Jose Police Officers’ Association asks Rosen’s office to issue blanket peremptory challenges to recuse Judge Hector Ramon from criminal cases.
A peremptory challenge is a one-time request to remove or change a judge in the initial stages of a criminal case. They can be filed by any party in a case.
“Several of Judge Ramon’s rulings make it clear that he places little value on the lives of my members and on protecting the public from violent offenders,” POA President Steve Slack wrote in the letter.
The Santa Clara Superior Court declined to directly address the union’s assertions, telling this news organization in a statement: “The court refrains from commenting on pending cases or the decisions of individual judicial officers in the lawful exercise of their judicial discretion.”
When reached by this news organization, the district attorney’s office declined immediate comment while it reviews the letter.
When addressing bail and custody matters, Ramon explains his evaluations in detail, often citing his obligations under the landmark Humphrey decision that was upheld by the California Supreme Court in 2021 and mandated that judges consider someone’s ability to pay when setting bail.
Judges still have the discretion to deny bail for public safety reasons, but under the decision they are urged to more heavily consider non-cash conditions, such as electronic monitoring programs and drug or alcohol treatment, in determining whether someone can be safely released.
Renee Hessling, a criminal-defense attorney based in San Jose who represents a defendant referenced in the POA letter, said Ramon is highly respected and called the union’s critique a refusal to accept the direction of criminal law post-Humphrey.
“This is not a Judge Ramon problem, this is a temper tantrum over the new laws that exist in California,” Hessling said. “Judge Ramon makes one of the most articulate, specific records each and every time when weighing those interests. He understands this new area of the law better than anyone.”
She added: “He’s not cavalier, and he doesn’t release everyone. I have been on the other end of those denials.”
In its letter, the union decried the supervised release of two brothers charged, among several others, in a June attack on a patrol officer and his vehicle in the aftermath of a sideshow near Santana Row. The sights of a mob, with some masked members, striking, jumping on and kicking in the windshield of the retreating police SUV drew national attention thanks to a viral eyewitness video.
Ramon denied the defendants their request to be allowed to return home to Arizona, but approved their transfer to a Bay Area sober-living facility, after hearing arguments by defense attorneys about their youth — they are in their early- to mid-20s — and lack of significant criminal history.
The union letter also mentions the case of John Galedrige, who was arrested March 29 at a Leigh Avenue home following a reported suicidal episode in which he is alleged to have shot at a police drone and at least once at responding officers, who were not hit. Galedrige was charged with five counts of assault with a firearm on an officer, and he was later released to a drug-treatment facility in San Jose.
“I suppose I should not have been surprised when Judge Ramon also allowed these defendants to remain out of custody. If he allowed it for somebody who attempted to kill an officer with a firearm, then of course he was also going to allow it for criminals who stomped on the officer’s windshield and assaulted him in the line of duty,” Slack wrote. “With these latest rulings, Judge Ramon has increased the danger to the public that these defendants pose, placed my members at further risk and demonstrated a lack of (judgment) as to what his role ought to be.”
Another high-profile case the union is citing involves Brett Bymaster, a former youth pastor in San Jose who was charged with a past sexual assault and who was granted release by Ramon in April.
At the bail hearing, the judge noted that there had not been an allegation against Bymaster since 2019. He also restated his statutory obligations for ordering pretrial detention, notably needing to have “clear and convincing evidence” the defendant posed a future danger and that there were no available bail conditions that could ensure community safety.
“I don’t see that in this case. I see mostly speculation that this is likely to occur,” Ramon said at the hearing.
Slack said the Bymaster decision is an example of why the union wants the DA’s office to “ensure Judge Ramon can’t put my members and the public at further risk.”
Hessling, who is one of the attorneys representing Bymaster, emphasized the letter does not outline any specific negative outcomes from Ramon’s bail and custody rulings.
“They talk about people who are released, but they can’t point to why that was the wrong decision,” she said. “What they are unhappy about is that (California) justices created case law asking judges to be more nuanced and give an individualized look to determine when it’s appropriate and safe to release someone. That’s not a bad thing.”
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.