Judge A. Marisa Chun

Judge A. Marisa Chun was appointed to the San Francisco Superior Court by Governor Gavin Newsom on July 9, 2021, bringing a career described as varied with a pronounced emphasis on access to justice. Her appointment by a progressive governor and her publicly stated judicial philosophy suggest an orientation toward equity, procedural fairness, and ensuring that litigants — particularly those with fewer resources — have meaningful access to the courts. These themes were highlighted in a May 2025 Daily Journal profile, indicating that access to justice is not merely a biographical footnote but an active, ongoing professional commitment that likely informs her courtroom management and substantive rulings. Judge Chun has presided over high-profile and sensitive matters in San Francisco, including the Jon Jacobo sexual-assault trial (covered by Mission Local in February 2025) and cases involving the credibility of San Francisco Police Department officers (covered by Davis Vanguard in July 2025). These case types — sexual assault and police credibility — require careful evidentiary management, sensitivity to witness testimony, and a willingness to scrutinize institutional actors. The fact that she has been assigned such matters suggests the court views her as capable of handling politically and socially complex litigation. Because no analyzed rulings, attorney observations, or ingested content are available, all assessments in this profile are necessarily inferential, drawn from biographical data, appointment context, and the nature of cases she has been assigned. Attorneys should treat this profile as a baseline orientation tool and actively supplement it with direct courtroom observation and peer consultation before any significant appearance before Judge Chun.

Given Judge Chun's publicly articulated commitment to access to justice, attorneys should frame arguments — where legitimately possible — in terms of fairness, equity, and the real-world impact of rulings on parties. This is not a suggestion to be manipulative, but rather to recognize that a judge who has built her identity around access to justice will likely be attentive to arguments that engage those values directly. Procedural arguments that appear designed to obstruct or delay, or that would effectively price out a less-resourced party, may receive heightened skepticism. In cases involving witness credibility, particularly those involving law enforcement witnesses, attorneys should be prepared for a judge who takes credibility determinations seriously and does not automatically defer to institutional authority. The Davis Vanguard coverage of SFPD officer credibility cases suggests Judge Chun is willing to engage rigorously with challenges to police testimony. Defense attorneys in criminal matters should present credibility challenges with specificity and evidentiary support rather than broad rhetorical attacks. Prosecutors should not assume officer testimony will be accepted uncritically and should prepare corroborating evidence accordingly. For civil practitioners, the access-to-justice theme suggests Judge Chun may be receptive to arguments about proportionality in discovery, fee-shifting where appropriate, and ensuring that procedural rules serve substantive justice rather than becoming barriers. Attorneys representing well-resourced institutional clients should be especially careful to demonstrate good faith and reasonableness in litigation conduct.

• critical

  Research the Jacobo Trial Proceedings and Rulings

  The Jon Jacobo sexual-assault trial (Mission Local, February 2025) is the most concrete data point available. Attorneys should research publicly available coverage of her evidentiary rulings, courtroom management, and any reported statements from that proceeding to extract behavioral patterns.

• critical

  Review Davis Vanguard Coverage of SFPD Credibility Cases

  The July 2025 Davis Vanguard coverage of police credibility cases before Judge Chun may contain specific rulings or statements. Attorneys in any criminal matter should review this coverage to understand her approach to law enforcement witness credibility.

• critical

  Consult San Francisco Criminal Defense Bar for Direct Observations

  Given the absence of attorney observation data, direct outreach to San Francisco criminal defense attorneys who have appeared before Judge Chun is essential. The local bar, particularly those active in the Public Defender's office or criminal defense community, will have firsthand intelligence.

• important

  Frame Briefs Around Access-to-Justice and Equity Themes

  Where factually and legally supportable, restructure briefing to engage Judge Chun's stated judicial philosophy. This is not about rhetoric but about ensuring your strongest equitable arguments are foregrounded rather than buried.

• important

  Prepare Thorough Witness Credibility Analyses

  In any matter involving contested witness testimony — especially law enforcement witnesses — prepare detailed credibility analyses with documentary support. Do not rely on bare assertions or assume the court will fill gaps favorably.

• Nice

  Review Daily Journal May 2025 Profile

  The Daily Journal profile from May 2025 is a primary source on her judicial philosophy and career background. Obtaining and reviewing this article may reveal specific statements, priorities, or career details that inform courtroom strategy.

• ›Treat all parties and witnesses with visible respect and professionalism — a judge committed to access to justice is likely to be sensitive to power imbalances and courtroom dynamics that disadvantage less-resourced parties or vulnerable witnesses.
• ›In cases involving sensitive subject matter (sexual assault, police misconduct), adopt a measured, non-sensationalist tone. Aggressive or dismissive treatment of sensitive testimony is likely to draw judicial intervention.
• ›Be prepared to address the real-world impact of your requested relief — Judge Chun's access-to-justice philosophy suggests she thinks beyond legal formalism to practical consequences for parties.
• ›Arrive fully prepared on evidentiary foundations for witness testimony, particularly for law enforcement witnesses. Do not assume the court will accept foundational assertions without scrutiny.
• ›Demonstrate good faith in all litigation conduct. A judge focused on access to justice is likely to be attentive to litigation tactics that appear designed to burden or exhaust the opposing party rather than advance legitimate legal positions.