Defendant failed to satisfy his burden to show trial court’s statements and evidentiary rulings violated the RJA. The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings were influenced by implicit racial bias in violation of the RJA. The court of appeal determined the court’s rulings were not motivated by racial bias or animus under RJA’s preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, but rather, demonstrated ordinary evidentiary rulings based on legitimate assessments of relevance. Further, it found the trial court’s statement during sentencing that the defendant was a thief, fraudster, liar and coward does not meet the definition of racially discriminatory language for purposes of the RJA. [Editor’s Note: Although the court of appeal declined to address forfeiture, it noted the importance of bringing a RJA claim in the trial court in the first instance.]

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B332399.PDF