Racially discriminatory language and bias

Name: In re Haney
Case #: A170412
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 09/16/2026

The Court of Appeal published only the introductory portion of the opinion to give context to a separate concurrence regarding RJA claims based on peremptory challenges. While the defendant's habeas petition was pending in the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court decided People v. Hazlett (2026) __ Cal.5th __ (S126387), which required the denial with prejudice of the portion of the defendant's RJA claim based on the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges. 

Justice Streeter wrote a concurring opinion, noting he was required to concur, but expressing agreement with Justice Evans' dissent in Hazlett, and adding historical context to give further…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Barrera
Case #: S103358
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 06/01/2026

The California Supreme Court affirms appellant’s convictions for two first degree murders of his children and the death sentence. Evidence was sufficient for torture murder and premeditated murder and for torture-murder special circumstances based on prolonged physical abuse, starvation, and failure to seek care. Any confrontation clause/Sanchez error was harmless. Any error for failing to give a second degree felony murder by torture instruction was harmless. Any Griffin error was harmless. The Court rejects multiple Racial Justice Act (RJA) claims, finding that any RJA violations were harmless. [Editor's Note: Justice Liu concurred in the judgment, including the majority's determination that any violations of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Demolle
Case #: S159120
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 06/01/2026

Potential RJA violation during the penalty phase of a capital case – referring to defendant as a wolf – was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. After defendant was found guilty of murdering and raping an 11-year-old, the prosecutor’s reference to defendant as a “predator” and a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” did not violate the RJA. Additionally, where the judgment was entered before the effective date of the RJA, the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies to RJA claims asserting racially discriminatory language. Assuming without deciding that more references to defendant as a “wolf” violated the RJA, any error was…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gomez
Case #: D086608
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/04/2026

Although appellant forfeited his claim under the Racial Justice Act (RJA), the claim would have been denied on the merits because the prosecutor used the dog analogy solely to explain circumstantial evidence. When the prosecutor later more directly compared appellant to a dog in a single comment, it was in the context of the state of the evidence, not anyone’s character or inherent traits. The Court remands for resentencing because the sentence on the VC 10851 conviction was unauthorized as no findings were made as to whether appellant had been previously convicted within the meaning of PC 666.5(a).

The…

View Full Summary
Name: Hernandez v. Superior Court
Case #: H052774
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/07/2025

Prima facie RJA violation (PC 745(h)(2)) established where defendant demonstrated “more than a mere possibility” RJA violation occurred. Latino defendant alleged officer: employed racial profiling during traffic stop and subsequent pat frisk, assumed defendant had criminal history based on race, directed racially stereotypical language toward defendant and bystanders, and used “Sureño whistle” while searching defendant. Defendant’s statistical evidence and expert declaration, combined with bodycam video, demonstrated facts which, if true, established a substantial likelihood that a RJA violation occurred.

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

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Midell
Case #: A168758
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/28/2025

The Court of Appeal holds that defense counsel’s likening of appellant to an “animal” was a defense tactic, thus appellant is procedurally barred under invited error from using those references as a basis for reversal under the Racial Justice Act (RJA, PC 745). Nor did the trial court have a sua sponte duty to inquire into counsel’s potential RJA violation. The Court finds appellant forfeited any RJA claim based on the trial court’s description of appellant’s conduct as “animalistic” by failing to object at the time. The Court finds that mental delusions are inadmissible under PC 28 as a…

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. 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: Sanchez v. Superior Court
Case #: E083015
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 11/08/2024

No error where trial court removed defendant’s deputy public defender from the case, over defendant and counsel’s objection, due to conflict of interest based on counsel’s alleged potential RJA violation (PC 745). Defense counsel allegedly told the prosecutor to offer defendant a better plea bargain because the prosecutor and defendant were from the same racial group. Defense counsel has a duty to investigate any potential RJA violation, but investigating one’s own potential unconscious bias is not possible, creating an actual conflict justifying counsel’s removal. Dissent deemed removal unwarranted because no conceivable RJA violation occurred.

The full opinion is available on the…

View Full Summary