|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
For the first time since 2014, San Mateo County voters will have the opportunity to choose a new Superior Court judge. While judges are typically appointed by the governor and often reelected in uncontested races, the retirement of Judge Susan Greenberg has created an open seat.
Two veteran prosecutors are running for the position on the June 2 primary ballot: longtime San Mateo County prosecutor Brian Donnellan and Santa Clara County Chief Deputy District Attorney Jay Boyarsky.
“We are the final arbitrators of justice for the residents of San Mateo County, whether that’s in a criminal case, civil case, probate, family law or juvenile case,” San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Michael Wendler said of the role. Wendler spoke with this news organization about the role of judges in general and not about any specific candidate, though he has endorsed Donnellan.
Wendler said that as a judge, he makes difficult decisions every day. On a “slow” Tuesday, he ruled on whether to grant search and arrest warrants, allow diversion and accept a withdrawn plea, he said.
“I have to protect the institution that’s the criminal justice system, and also the public,” Wendler said. “A lot of times we’re just making the best call we can in the situation and hoping for the best. Sometimes we have to take risks based on the information we have.”
While judges do have discretion, Wendler said it is important they do not try to create policy.
“Every social change in our country started because a lawyer had the moral courage to go into court and challenge something, and it took a judge, usually that same moral courage. But we don’t dictate policy, and it’s concerning if a judge does,” Wendler said.
Judicial candidates face ethical restrictions on how they can campaign and are not allowed to discuss potential cases. When voters choose a judge, Wendler said, they should consider candidates’ ties to, and recognition in, their community, their courtroom experience, temperament and reputation.
The candidates
Both Donnellan and Boyarsky have long histories as prosecutors, each working in their respective offices for more than 20 years.
Donnellan immigrated to San Mateo County from Ireland as a 6-month-old. He earned both his bachelor’s and law degrees from the University of San Francisco. Donnellan was awarded a Bronze Star for his Army service in Iraq and served in the Army Reserve for 24 years.
Boyarsky graduated from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and earned his law degree from the University of California, Berkeley. He has extensive experience in Santa Clara County, where he is second in command at the District Attorney’s Office and supervises more than 190 prosecutors. A Palo Alto resident, Boyarsky ran unsuccessfully for judge in Santa Clara County in 2008 and 2024.
Donnellan has been endorsed by every current San Mateo County judge and deputy district attorney, as well as unions representing officers and sergeants in 15 police agencies.
Boyarsky is endorsed by Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, as well as U.S. Rep. Sam Liccardo and state Sen. Josh Becker. He is also endorsed by the National Asian Pacific Islander Prosecutors Association and Planned Parenthood Mar Monte.
Assemblymember Marc Berman has endorsed both candidates.
This news organization sent each candidate a list of questions. Their answers have been edited and abridged.
Almanac: What qualities make you a strong candidate for judge?
Boyarsky: I will succeed as a judge for the San Mateo County Superior Court because of my strong work ethic; legal knowledge and expertise; patience, kindness and empathy for people regardless of their status or station in life; and collaborative approach to work.
Donnellan: My legal career has been based on the following principles: fairness, hard work and respect for the rule of law. A judge must approach every case with an open mind, listen carefully to all parties, and apply the law impartially. Judges must also be well prepared and thoughtful in their decision-making, recognizing that their rulings affect real people and families. My hope is that people who appear before me, should I be elected, will feel that they were heard and respected even if they had desired a different outcome.
Almanac: How will your background inform your decision-making on the bench?
Boyarsky: Ever since I was a kid, I’ve identified with the underdog, with the person without power and who is vulnerable, like Maricela, namesake of the law I helped pass to prosecute child molesters and rapists. I’ve always been passionate about right and wrong; about people abusing their power to take advantage of others whether they do so with a gun or with their power in other ways. This motivated me to become a prosecutor and to spend my career helping victims of crime, especially victims of sexual assault, violence and hate crimes.
My dad landed on Utah Beach in Normandy wearing a dog tag denoting he was Jewish. His unit came upon the Dachau concentration camp and helped liberate the surviving prisoners, most of whom were also Jewish. His example informs the person I try to be. It informs who I am and the decisions I make in my life.
Donnellan: In addition to my experience as a prosecutor, I served as a lawyer for 18 years in the Army Reserve. I also worked in the airline industry in customer-facing roles for six years, prior to going to law school. My work has exposed me to a broad range of people, often undergoing stressful experiences. This has prepared me for the diverse set of circumstances I will face on the bench should I be elected and allow me to deliver justice with fairness, integrity and compassion.
Almanac: How would you approach penalties and sentencing in civil and criminal matters?
Boyarsky: In a word: thoughtfully. My fundamental view of penalties and sentencing is that there must be appropriate accountability tempered by the individual circumstances of every case while understanding that consistency is an important component of justice.
Donnellan: In addressing criminal penalties, I would consider the severity of the present crime, the harm to the victim, and the background of the victim and the defendant, including the defendant’s criminal history. In determining penalties in civil matters, I would follow the law and consider the relative culpability of each party and the injury suffered.
