California Racial Justice Act (Penal Code § 745)

Current-law note: This guide was reviewed through September 23, 2026 against the current text of California Penal Code § 745 and the latest published 2026 RJA decisions, including In re Pride, In re Haney, and Montes v. Superior Court. The statute’s present version reflects amendments effective January 1, 2026. For the controlling statutory language, see the California Legislative Information page for Penal Code § 745.

Quick answer: California Penal Code § 745 allows a defendant to challenge a conviction or sentence affected by racial, ethnic, or national-origin bias, including qualifying discriminatory language and certain charging, conviction, or sentencing disparities. The Act can operate before judgment and, subject to the applicable procedure, after judgment as well.

California’s Racial Justice Act (RJA) prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction, or seeking, obtaining, or imposing a sentence, on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. The statute reaches more than overt intentional discrimination: its framework addresses bias or animus, racially discriminatory language, and statistically significant disparities in charging, convictions, and sentencing.

What Can Establish an RJA Violation?

Penal Code § 745 identifies four principal ways a defendant may establish a violation: (1) bias or animus by a judge, attorney, law-enforcement officer, expert witness, or juror because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin; (2) racially discriminatory language or other qualifying bias or animus during proceedings, whether or not purposeful; (3) more serious charging or conviction treatment compared with similarly situated defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins, together with the required disparity evidence; or (4) a longer or more severe sentence under the statute’s comparative framework.

Racial Justice Act Discovery

Section 745(d) permits a defendant to move for disclosure of evidence relevant to a potential RJA violation that is in the possession or control of the state. The motion must describe the records or information sought. Current appellate decisions, including In re Pride (2026) and In re Haney (2026), reinforce that RJA discovery is analytically distinct from the later prima facie merits determination. California appellate decisions describe the threshold good-cause showing as a flexible, relatively low standard: the defense must present a plausible factual foundation, based on specific facts, that an RJA violation could or might have occurred. Depending on the claim, relevant discovery can include records, information, statistical evidence, aggregate data, charging information, dispositions, and other material bearing on comparative treatment. For a current litigation-focused treatment of the good-cause standard, county-specific statistics, comparator evidence, and the 2026 procedural changes, see California Racial Justice Act Discovery in 2026.

2026 service requirement: Assembly Bill 1071 added a service requirement when a represented applicant alleges an RJA violation by law enforcement. Counsel must serve a copy of the petition on the law-enforcement agency that employed the officer. See the Judicial Council’s 2026 RJA forms update.

Prima Facie Showing and Evidentiary Hearing

Discovery is not the same as proving an RJA claim. For a merits hearing, the statute uses a higher prima facie threshold. A prima facie showing requires facts that, if true, establish a substantial likelihood that a violation occurred. “Substantial likelihood” is more than a mere possibility but less than more likely than not. At the prima facie stage, California authority instructs courts to focus on the allegations and supporting evidence rather than prematurely resolving credibility disputes. If the required showing is made, the court proceeds to a hearing at which the defendant ultimately bears the statutory burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Important California RJA Decisions

• Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138: explains the “plausible factual foundation” standard for RJA discovery and recognizes the breadth and flexibility of discovery relevant to a potential violation.
• Finley v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 12: addresses the prima facie “substantial likelihood” inquiry and the treatment of allegations and supporting evidence at that stage.
• Gonzales v. Superior Court: recognizes that statistical evidence can itself provide specific facts sufficient to support a plausible case for RJA discovery in an appropriate case; comparative case-specific facts are not invariably required at the discovery threshold.
• People v. Stubblefield: illustrates application of § 745(a)(2) to racially discriminatory language and the consequences of a proven violation under the applicable remedial provisions.
• Jackson v. Superior Court (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 372: discusses the RJA procedure, including the prima facie stage and the Act’s purpose of addressing racially discriminatory practices beyond intentional discrimination.
• In re Pride (2026): separates the low threshold for appointment of counsel from the good-cause standard for discovery and the higher prima facie merits threshold; the Court of Appeal held the trial court had conflated those stages.
• In re Haney (2026): confirms that an RJA habeas petitioner may seek Penal Code § 745(d) discovery in preparation to file a petition and need not first establish a prima facie case.
• Montes v. Superior Court (2026): addresses access to prosecution jury-selection notes in postconviction discovery under Penal Code § 1054.9 and is especially relevant when an RJA theory depends on reconstructing jury-selection evidence.

Post-Conviction RJA Relief

The RJA is not limited to cases awaiting trial. Depending on the procedural posture, claims may be raised through a motion, direct appeal when based on the trial record, habeas corpus, or a motion to vacate under Penal Code § 1473.7. California expanded the Act through phased retroactive application. By January 1, 2026, the statutory schedule extends RJA availability to felony convictions and qualifying juvenile dispositions regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final, subject to the governing statutory procedures. For a focused analysis of prejudgment and postjudgment relief, vacatur, resentencing, charge reduction, the special rule for certain pre-2021 judgments, and death-penalty ineligibility, see California Racial Justice Act Remedies in 2026.

For older final felony judgments and the completed 2026 phase-in, see California Racial Justice Act Retroactivity in 2026, including direct appeal, habeas corpus, and Penal Code § 1473.7 procedural pathways.

Why Statistical and Comparative Evidence Matters

One of the RJA’s significant features is its express recognition of statistical evidence and aggregate data. A claim involving disparate charging or sentencing can require analysis of similarly situated defendants, offense conduct, charging decisions, dispositions, sentencing outcomes, and asserted race-neutral explanations. Penal Code § 745(h) makes two points especially important for statistical claims: statistical significance is a factor the court may consider, but it is not required to establish a significant difference, and “similarly situated” does not require that every person in the comparison group be identical. The court instead evaluates the totality of the evidence, including relevant charging or sentencing factors and evidence concerning systemic or institutional bias. For a litigation-focused treatment of comparator design, county data, aggregate evidence, and the discovery threshold, see California Racial Justice Act Discovery in 2026.

Racial Justice Act Cases and Forensic Evidence

Penal Code § 745 expressly includes expert witnesses among the actors whose qualifying conduct can support an RJA claim. Cases involving forensic science may therefore require simultaneous analysis of the scientific record and the legal record—including expert testimony, terminology used before the jury, comparative treatment, and whether expert evidence was presented or characterized in a manner relevant to an asserted RJA violation.

For current jury-selection issues, see California Jury Selection in 2026: Hazlett, Sanmiguel, the RJA, and CCP § 231.7, which separates the standards governing Penal Code § 745 claims from section 231.7 peremptory-challenge objections.

Related Racial Justice Act, Legal, and Forensic Resources

Racial Justice Act issues can overlap with criminal-defense strategy, expert testimony, and the interpretation of scientific evidence. For deeper RJA research, see the California Racial Justice Act summary, Racial Justice Act Resources, California Racial Justice Act Discovery in 2026, and filed RJA motion materials. Related resources from The Okorocha Firm include California criminal defense, toxicology co-counsel for drug and alcohol evidence, and forensic toxicology expert-witness services.

2026 California Supreme Court Guidance on Racially Discriminatory Language

California Supreme Court decisions issued June 1, 2026 sharpen the analysis under Penal Code § 745(a)(2). In People v. Bankston, the Court held that the RJA reaches explicit appeals to racial bias and facially neutral language that implicitly appeals to racial bias, with context central to the objective-observer inquiry. The Court found an RJA violation arising from the prosecutor’s Bengal-tiger comparison and reversed the death judgment; for judgments entered before 2021, it applied a harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard on appeal to claims involving racially discriminatory language. People v. Bankston, S044739 (Cal. June 1, 2026).

In People v. Barrera, the Court likewise emphasized that allegedly discriminatory language must be evaluated in context. It cautioned that dehumanizing language and gratuitous references to citizenship status have no proper place in California courtrooms, while concluding on the record before it that no reversible RJA error occurred. People v. Barrera, S103358 (Cal. June 1, 2026).

Practice point: RJA analysis is not limited to overt slurs. Counsel should preserve the precise words used, identify the speaker and procedural setting, develop the historical and contextual evidence needed for the objective-observer inquiry, and separately analyze the remedy and prejudice framework that applies to the case’s procedural posture.

For a focused analysis of the Supreme Court’s June 1, 2026 language cases, see Racially Discriminatory Language Under California’s Racial Justice Act: Bankston and Barrera, including the objective-observer framework, animal imagery, prospective-juror issue, record preservation, and appellate prejudice.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does an RJA claim require proof of intentional racism?

No. The statutory framework expressly reaches certain conduct whether or not purposeful and was designed to address discriminatory practices beyond only intentional discrimination.

Can a defendant obtain prosecution data under the RJA?

Potentially. Section 745(d) authorizes a motion for disclosure of evidence relevant to a potential violation in the state’s possession or control. The precise scope depends on relevance, the factual foundation, availability, privacy or governmental interests, timing, burden, and other case-specific considerations.

Can statistics support an RJA claim?

Yes. The Act expressly contemplates statistical evidence and aggregate data, particularly for comparative charging, conviction, and sentencing theories.

Does the RJA apply to older convictions?

Yes, subject to the statute’s phased retroactivity provisions and the procedural requirements applicable to the particular case. The phased schedule reaches felony convictions and qualifying juvenile dispositions regardless of finality by January 1, 2026.

---

Primary California authority for 2026 RJA analysis

For primary-source review, consult the current text of California Penal Code § 745, amended effective January 1, 2026, and, for habeas procedure, California Rule of Court 4.551, amended effective July 1, 2026. These official sources should be checked alongside the site’s 2026 RJA habeas guide, discovery and statistical-evidence guide, and Racial Justice Act resources hub.

Legal review: Okorie Okorocha, J.D., M.S., M.S. | Reviewed September 2026.

This page provides general information about California law and is not legal advice. RJA procedure and available remedies depend on the facts and procedural posture of the individual case.