Racial Justice Act (RJA)

Name: McDaniel v. Superior Court
Case #: A171858
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 05/19/2025

The Court of Appeal holds that a defendant may meet the threshold showing of good cause for discovery under the RJA with statistical evidence alone. The Court reasoned that, at the discovery phase, parties need only show plausibility based on specific facts, which can be done through case-specific facts, “statistical facts relevant to the charges and individuals involved,” or both.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: McIntosh v. Superior Court of San Diego County
Case #: D084379
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/28/2025

The trial court erroneously denied defendant’s request for appointed counsel in his habeas corpus petition raising RJA claims based on the ground that he did not meet the prima facie showing required for an order to show cause. PC 1473(e) imposes a duty on the trial court to assess a request for counsel independently of the court’s duty to assess whether to issue an OSC. To remedy the error, the Court of Appeal construed defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as a petition for writ of mandate and granted the petition, directing the trial court to conduct the…

View Full Summary
Name: Jackson v. Superior Court
Case #: D084751
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/28/2025

The trial court erred in denying an RJA petition at the prima facie stage where petitioner produced facts that, if true, establish there is a substantial likelihood that an RJA violation occurred (PC § 745, subd. (h)(2)). On a petition for a writ of mandate, the Court of Appeal found that Jackson presented sufficient evidence to establish a substantial likelihood under the RJA that implicit racial bias influenced the traffic stop. Statistical evidence showed Black drivers in San Diego were disproportionately stopped and searched. Additionally, Jackson and his brother had been repeatedly stopped by police…

View Full Summary
Name: Bemore v. Superior Court of San Diego County
Case #: D084579
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/18/2025

Trial court erred in appointing the Public Defender as habeas counsel on petitioner's RJA habeas claims, where the Public Defender breached its duty of loyalty. The Court of Appeal granted Bemore’s petition for writ of mandate and directed the court to appoint petitioner's requested attorneys to represent him on an RJA habeas petition challenging his convictions filed in superior court. PC 987.2 is the exclusive mechanism for the selection of appointed counsel on noncapital, postconviction RJA claims in the superior court. Under PC 987.2, the Public Defender was “unavailable” because it represented conflicting interests and…

View Full Summary
Name: R.D. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County
Case #: C100422
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/19/2025

Juvenile court did not err under the RJA when it declined to dismiss or reduce petitioner's charge or impose another remedy. When denying R.D.’s request for electronic monitoring release, a visiting judge referenced R.D. as a “‘gang banger,” commented that gang involvement was “in his blood,” “in his culture,” and “he can’t get it out of his system."  One week later, the regularly assigned judge granted the request for electronic monitoring release and found a violation of the RJA but imposed no further remedy. While the RJA does not preclude defendants from seeking relief…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lawson
Case #: B332399
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/13/2025

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…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Stubblefield (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 896
Case #: H048598
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/26/2024
Subsequent History: Vacated for reconsideration (S289152)

During closing argument in a rape trial of a former NFL player, the prosecutor asserted that the police did not search appellant’s house for a gun because he was a famous Black man. The prosecutor also implied it would be bad publicity to search an African American’s residence in Morgan Hill. The Court of Appeal holds that these statements constitute “racially discriminatory language about” appellant’s race within the meaning of the RJA (PC 745 (a)(2)), and that appellant’s conviction was therefore sought or obtained in violation of the Act. Finding further that the RJA precludes harmless error analysis, the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Quintero
Case #: A165276
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 12/31/2024

The prosecution’s use of the terms “monsters” and “predators” did not violate the Racial Justice Act (PC 745). Appellants argued that the RJA forbids the use of such dehumanizing terms against persons of color. Although the Court agreed the term “monster” may be suggestive of an animal/beast and should generally not be used to describe defendants, here the prosecutor’s use of the term twice during the fairly lengthy closing was “in the context of describing the defendants’ vicious crime.” Characterizing defendants’ conduct as predatory was justified based on the evidence.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hodge
Case #: B337339
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 12/27/2024

Trial court’s order denying (1) PC 1172.1 request for resentencing, and (2) PC 745 RJA motion, is not appealable under People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155.  For the PC 1172.1 request, the trial court’s decision to not exercise its discretion to recall sentence did not affect defendant’s substantial rights under PC 1237(b) because the court had no statutory obligation to act on request. For the RJA motion, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider it because incarcerated defendants whose convictions are final may only raise RJA claim in a petition for…

View Full Summary
Name: Merrick v. Lau
Case #: B322994
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 12/17/2024

A gratuitous reference to plaintiff’s ethnicity and gender during enforcement proceedings in a civil suit did not offend due process. During a hearing in a civil judgment enforcement proceeding, the superior court judge stated “I know your client [the plaintiff] was not happy with my ruling. I mean, she was there, you know, mad dogging me, which didn’t bother me at all. It was almost amusing to see this little Chinese woman stare me down, because she didn’t like the ruling.” Because the record was devoid of any other references to plaintiff’s ethnicity or gender, or any other evidence of…

View Full Summary