Judge Hanley Chew

Judge Hanley Chew brings an unusually sophisticated and multi-dimensional legal background to the Santa Clara Superior Court bench, having been appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom in November 2021. His career trajectory is distinctive: he spent over a decade as a federal prosecutor (AUSA in both the Central and Northern Districts of California), worked at elite Silicon Valley and national law firms (Wilson Sonsini, Jones Day, Fenwick & West), and served as a Vice President at Stroz Friedberg, a leading digital forensics and cybersecurity consulting firm. This combination of federal prosecutorial experience, Big Law civil litigation, and high-tech forensic consulting is rare on any state court bench and shapes his approach in measurable ways. Judge Chew's notable cases reveal a willingness to preside over complex, high-profile, and emotionally charged matters. The 'Stanford 11' felony vandalism mistrial (2026), the Bay Area exorcism death trial involving a three-year-old (2024), and the cold case serial killer sentencing (2023) demonstrate that he is assigned — and accepts — cases requiring careful management of public attention, sensitive evidence, and procedural complexity. The mistrial in the Stanford 11 case is a notable data point suggesting he may prioritize procedural integrity and juror fairness over expedient resolution, though without ruling-level data this inference is preliminary. His federal prosecutorial background — over a decade as an AUSA — strongly suggests familiarity with evidentiary standards, constitutional criminal procedure, and structured, methodical case presentation. His time at Fenwick & West and Wilson Sonsini signals fluency in technology-related disputes, intellectual property, and complex commercial litigation. Attorneys appearing before Judge Chew should expect a judge who is analytically rigorous, comfortable with technical evidence, and unlikely to be impressed by rhetorical flourish over substance.

Given Judge Chew's decade-plus as a federal prosecutor, attorneys — particularly in criminal matters — should anticipate a judge who thinks in terms of federal evidentiary standards and constitutional doctrine. He will likely hold counsel to high standards of precision in evidentiary arguments, motions in limine, and foundational showings. Do not assume state court informality will be tolerated; frame arguments with the rigor you would bring to federal court. In criminal cases, expect close scrutiny of Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues, chain of custody, and expert qualifications, given his Stroz Friedberg background in digital forensics. In civil matters, particularly those involving technology companies, intellectual property, trade secrets, or digital evidence, Judge Chew's background at Fenwick & West and Wilson Sonsini gives him genuine subject-matter fluency. Attorneys should not over-explain basic technology concepts but should instead focus on the legal and factual distinctions that matter. Oversimplifying technical issues risks appearing condescending; under-explaining them is equally risky. Strike a balance by providing clear, precise technical summaries with supporting documentation. The Stanford 11 mistrial suggests that Judge Chew will not rush proceedings to avoid complexity or public pressure. Attorneys should not count on a judge who will cut corners to move a docket. Instead, invest in thorough pretrial preparation, well-organized briefs, and clean jury instructions. His high-profile case assignments also suggest he is comfortable managing media attention — do not attempt to use press coverage as leverage in the courtroom.

• critical

  Audit All Digital and Electronic Evidence for Foundation

  Given Judge Chew's Stroz Friedberg background, any digital evidence — emails, metadata, device logs, social media records — must be authenticated with forensic rigor. Prepare chain of custody documentation, expert qualifications, and methodology disclosures well in advance of any evidentiary hearing.

• critical

  Brief to Federal Court Standards

  Draft motions and oppositions with the precision expected in federal court: clean record citations, accurate statement of legal standards, and structured argument. Avoid the looser conventions sometimes tolerated in state court practice.

• important

  Prepare Thorough Motions in Limine

  His prosecutorial background suggests he will engage seriously with evidentiary gatekeeping. File comprehensive motions in limine with supporting authority, and be prepared for detailed oral argument on admissibility issues.

• important

  Research Federal Criminal Procedure Doctrine

  For criminal defense or prosecution matters, review relevant Ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court precedent in addition to California authority. Judge Chew will be fluent in federal doctrine and may find federal case law persuasive even in state court proceedings.

• important

  Prepare Clean, Precise Jury Instructions

  The Stanford 11 mistrial underscores the importance of getting jury instructions right. Invest significant preparation time in proposed instructions, anticipate disputes, and be ready to argue the legal basis for each contested instruction.

• Nice

  Calibrate Technical Explanations Carefully

  For technology-related matters, avoid over-explaining basics to a judge with genuine tech industry and forensic expertise. Focus expert testimony and briefing on the contested legal and factual distinctions, not foundational concepts he already understands.

• ›Maintain federal-court formality and precision in all oral argument — avoid the casual register sometimes used in busy state court calendars; Judge Chew's background suggests he expects structured, disciplined advocacy.
• ›Do not attempt to leverage media coverage or public attention in courtroom arguments; his experience with high-profile trials indicates he will not be influenced by external pressure and may view such tactics negatively.
• ›Be prepared for substantive, probing questions on evidentiary foundations and legal standards — have record citations and supporting authority immediately accessible rather than relying on general assertions.
• ›Treat digital and electronic evidence with particular care in the courtroom; any casual handling of authentication or chain of custody issues is likely to draw immediate scrutiny from a judge with hands-on forensic expertise.
• ›Respect procedural timelines and deadlines rigorously; a judge with federal prosecutorial and Big Law backgrounds is unlikely to be sympathetic to requests for extensions based on inadequate preparation.