California Racial Justice Act Remedies in 2026: What Happens After a Penal Code § 745 Violation?
Current-law note: This article reflects California Penal Code § 745 as effective January 1, 2026. The controlling text should always be checked before filing. See California Penal Code § 745.
California’s Racial Justice Act does more than identify prohibited racial bias in criminal cases. Once a court finds a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, Penal Code § 745 requires a remedy tailored to the violation. The available relief differs sharply depending on whether judgment has already been entered, and the statute contains additional rules for older judgments and death-penalty eligibility.
Quick Answer: What Remedies Are Available Under California’s Racial Justice Act?
Before judgment, a court that finds a violation may grant a mistrial, discharge the jury panel and empanel a new jury, dismiss enhancements, special circumstances, or special allegations, reduce one or more charges when the court finds that doing so is in the interest of justice, or impose another remedy not prohibited by law. After judgment, a conviction obtained in violation of the Act generally must be vacated and new proceedings ordered; if only the sentence violated the Act, the sentence must be vacated and a new sentence imposed. A defendant may not receive a greater sentence on resentencing. A defendant for whom the court finds an RJA violation is not eligible for the death penalty.
Remedies Before Judgment
Section 745(e)(1) creates a flexible prejudgment remedial framework. The court must impose a remedy specific to the violation found and may choose among several statutory options.
Mistrial
The court may grant the defendant’s request for a mistrial. This remedy can be significant where racially discriminatory language, bias, or other qualifying conduct has contaminated proceedings in a way that cannot adequately be addressed while the same trial continues.
Discharge the Jury Panel and Empanel a New Jury
The court may discharge the existing jury panel and seat a new one. This remedy directly addresses circumstances in which the jury-selection process or other qualifying conduct involving the panel has created an RJA violation.
Dismiss Enhancements, Special Circumstances, or Special Allegations; Reduce Charges
If the court determines that it would be in the interest of justice, it may dismiss enhancements, special circumstances, or special allegations, or reduce one or more charges. This remedy is particularly important where the proven violation concerns charging severity or comparative treatment.
Other Lawful Remedies
The statute also allows any other remedy not prohibited by another law. That language gives trial courts room to tailor relief to the particular violation rather than forcing every prejudgment case into a single remedial box.
Remedies After Judgment
Postjudgment relief depends on whether the violation affected the conviction, the sentence, or both.
If the Conviction Was Sought or Obtained in Violation of the RJA
When the court finds that a conviction was sought or obtained in violation of § 745(a), the court must vacate the conviction and sentence, find the judgment legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent with the RJA. There is a narrower rule for a violation based only on § 745(a)(3), involving racially disparate charging or conviction treatment: the court may modify the judgment to a lesser included or lesser related offense.
If Only the Sentence Violated the RJA
If the court finds that only the sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of the Act, the court must vacate the sentence, find it legally invalid, and impose a new sentence.
No Harsher Sentence on Resentencing
Whether the conviction is vacated or only the sentence is vacated, the statute provides that the court may not impose a new sentence greater than the sentence previously imposed.
Death-Penalty Ineligibility After an RJA Violation
Section 745(l), effective in the current statutory scheme, states that when a court finds a violation of § 745(a), the defendant is not eligible for the death penalty. The California Supreme Court’s June 1, 2026 decision in People v. Bankston is an important current authority addressing the RJA in a capital case and the treatment of racially discriminatory language and remedy.
The Special Rule for Certain Judgments Entered Before January 1, 2021
For petitions in cases in which judgment was entered before January 1, 2021—and only those cases—§ 745(k) creates a special rule for claims based on § 745(a)(1) or (a)(2). Once the violation is shown, the petitioner is entitled to relief provided by subdivision (e) unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation did not contribute to the judgment.
This procedural distinction matters because lawyers should not assume that the same prejudice framework applies identically across every RJA case. The date of judgment, theory of violation, procedural vehicle, and posture of the case all affect the remedial analysis.
How the Remedy Should Track the Violation
The statute directs the court to impose a remedy specific to the violation found. That makes the theory of the case consequential from the beginning. A claim based on discriminatory language may present a different remedial record from a claim based on charging disparity or sentencing disparity. Counsel should build the evidentiary record with the potential remedy in mind, not merely the threshold question of whether a violation occurred.
Why the Trial Record Matters
Remedy questions frequently turn on precisely what occurred, when it occurred, who was involved, what the jury heard, and whether the asserted violation concerned the conviction, the sentence, or both. Counsel should preserve transcripts, motions, exhibits, jury-selection materials, comparative data, expert testimony, law-enforcement records, and the court’s findings. Section 745 requires the trial court to make findings on the record after the evidentiary hearing.
RJA Remedies and Expert-Witness Conduct
Penal Code § 745 expressly includes expert witnesses among the actors whose qualifying bias, animus, or racially discriminatory language can establish a violation. In cases involving forensic science, counsel should preserve the expert’s exact words, report language, demonstratives, comparison groups, assumptions, and methodological framing. The legal question may concern both the reliability of the scientific evidence and whether its presentation implicates the RJA.
RJA Remedies Are Not Exclusive
Section 745(e)(3) provides that RJA remedies do not foreclose remedies available under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or other law. Counsel therefore should analyze RJA relief alongside any independent constitutional, statutory, evidentiary, or procedural grounds that may apply.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does every RJA violation automatically require a new trial?
No. The remedy depends on the procedural posture and the violation found. Before judgment, remedies can include mistrial, a new jury panel, dismissal of enhancements or special circumstances, charge reduction, or another lawful remedy. After judgment, the statute distinguishes between violations affecting the conviction and violations affecting only the sentence.
Can a court reduce charges before judgment?
Yes. If the court determines that doing so is in the interest of justice, § 745(e)(1)(C) permits dismissal of enhancements, special circumstances, or special allegations, or reduction of one or more charges.
What happens if only the sentence violated the RJA?
The sentence must be vacated, found legally invalid, and replaced with a new sentence. The new sentence cannot be greater than the sentence previously imposed.
Can a defendant still receive the death penalty after the court finds an RJA violation?
No. The current statute states that when the court finds a violation of § 745(a), the defendant is not eligible for the death penalty.
Are RJA remedies the only remedies available?
No. The statute expressly preserves other remedies available under federal law, the California Constitution, and other law.
Related California Racial Justice Act Resources
For the broader statutory framework, see California Racial Justice Act (Penal Code § 745). For discovery, county-level statistics, comparator evidence, and the good-cause standard, see California Racial Justice Act Discovery in 2026. Additional source materials are collected at Racial Justice Act Resources.
About the author: Okorie Okorocha, J.D., M.S., M.S., is a California attorney and forensic toxicologist whose work includes criminal litigation and the interpretation of scientific evidence.
This article provides general information about California law and is not legal advice. RJA procedure and remedies depend on the facts, date of judgment, theory of violation, and procedural posture of the individual case.
