California Racial Justice Act Discovery in 2026: Good Cause, Statistical Evidence, and Penal Code § 745(d)

Current as of September 2026. California’s Racial Justice Act allows a defendant to seek disclosure of evidence relevant to a potential violation of Penal Code section 745. The discovery burden is intentionally lower than the burden required to prove an RJA violation, but it is not automatic. The strongest motions connect a plausible, case-specific theory of racial disparity or bias to relevant local data and a carefully defined request.

This article focuses on the discovery stage under Penal Code section 745(d). For the broader statutory framework, retroactivity rules, remedies, and current California Supreme Court guidance, see our California Racial Justice Act (Penal Code § 745) guide.

What is the discovery standard under Penal Code § 745(d)?

Direct answer: The defendant must show good cause for disclosure of relevant evidence. California courts have described that threshold as requiring a plausible factual foundation for a potential RJA violation, not proof of the violation itself. The discovery inquiry should not collapse into the higher prima facie or merits-stage burden.

That distinction matters because the information needed to test a disparity claim is often held by prosecutors, courts, or law-enforcement agencies. Requiring a defendant to prove the very disparity that the requested discovery is designed to investigate would create the kind of evidentiary catch-22 the RJA was intended to avoid.

Young v. Superior Court: the foundational discovery decision

In Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, the Court of Appeal analyzed the RJA’s good-cause discovery provision and rejected the much more demanding federal selective-prosecution discovery framework. The court emphasized the Legislature’s decision to create a lower discovery threshold so potentially substantial RJA claims could be investigated. Read Young.

For motion practice, Young is important for two related propositions: discovery may be available before a defendant can prove a complete RJA claim, and the motion should articulate a factual scenario that could plausibly constitute prohibited disparity or bias.

McDaniel: imperfect data can still support discovery

In McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025), the Court of Appeal found a sufficient discovery showing where the defendant presented county-specific data indicating a plausible racial disparity and supported the request with an expert declaration. The opinion stressed that a defendant need not cure every statistical limitation before obtaining information that may itself be necessary to perform a more complete analysis. Read McDaniel.

Practical point: At the discovery stage, statistical imperfections do not necessarily defeat good cause. But the motion should explain what the data does show, identify its limitations candidly, and connect the requested government records to the analysis that cannot yet be completed.

Lalo: statewide statistics may be too remote from the alleged disparity

People v. Superior Court (Lalo) (2025) illustrates the other side of the line. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant had not established good cause where the asserted charging scenario was not supported by the record, the comparison case was not sufficiently analogous, and the statistical evidence was statewide rather than focused on Riverside County. Read Lalo.

Practical point: Statistical evidence should be as geographically and factually connected to the alleged decision-making process as the available data permits. County-level charging, enhancement, plea, conviction, or sentencing data will often be more probative of a county prosecutor’s practices than broad statewide incarceration statistics.

What changed in 2026 under AB 1071?

Assembly Bill 1071, chaptered in 2025 and effective January 1, 2026, amended the RJA’s procedures. Among other changes, it clarified procedures for seeking RJA-related discovery in postconviction litigation and added a service requirement where a represented applicant alleges an RJA violation by law enforcement. California Judicial Branch materials describe the new requirement that counsel serve the petition on the law-enforcement agency that employed the officer when the allegation concerns that officer. See the Judicial Branch’s AB 1071 implementation materials.

The 2026 changes reinforce an important practice point: counsel should analyze not only section 745, but also the procedural vehicle being used—pretrial motion, postjudgment motion, habeas corpus, or motion to vacate—because the filing and service rules can differ.

What evidence can support good cause?

No single category is mandatory in every case. A well-supported motion may draw from several sources:

• County-specific statistical data concerning charging, enhancements, plea outcomes, convictions, or sentences.
• Comparator cases involving similarly situated defendants or materially similar conduct.
• RIPA stop and search data where the theory concerns policing or enforcement disparities.
• Statements, reports, communications, or policies bearing on racial bias, discriminatory language, or decision-making criteria.
• Expert statistical analysis when needed to explain disparity measures, denominators, confidence, confounding variables, or data limitations.
• Case-specific facts tying the requested discovery to the actual prosecutor, agency, charging decision, enhancement, plea process, or sentencing practice at issue.

For official and research resources that can help build the factual foundation, see our California Racial Justice Act resources page.

How specific should the discovery request be?

The request should be broad enough to test the claimed disparity but narrow enough to remain tied to the theory of the motion. Useful limiting criteria can include the county, prosecuting office, time period, offense or offense family, enhancement, disposition, sentencing outcome, decision-maker, and race or ethnicity variables relevant to the claim.

An overbroad request invites burden objections. An artificially narrow request may miss the comparison population needed to determine whether a disparity exists. The objective is a defined universe that can meaningfully test whether similarly situated people of different races were treated differently.

Discovery is not the same as the prima facie hearing

Section 745 uses different procedural stages for different questions. Discovery asks whether there is good cause to disclose relevant evidence. A prima facie hearing asks whether the defendant has made the showing required to proceed further on the merits. Ultimately, an RJA violation must be established under the statute’s substantive standard. Treating those burdens as interchangeable can improperly require merits-stage proof before the defendant has access to the evidence needed to investigate the claim.

Statistical evidence: five questions to ask before filing

1. What is the denominator? A disparity percentage is difficult to interpret without understanding the population against which it is calculated.
2. Is the geography appropriate? Statewide data may not establish a plausible county-level charging disparity.
3. Are the comparison groups similarly situated? Identify legally and factually material variables rather than relying on superficial similarity.
4. What information is unavailable without government discovery? Explain the missing fields or records and why they matter.
5. Does the statistical theory match the requested records? Each request should have a clear analytical purpose.

What should counsel request from the prosecution?

Depending on the theory, useful fields may include defendant race and ethnicity, charges presented and filed, dismissed counts, enhancements alleged and dismissed, plea offers, final dispositions, prior-conviction allegations, sentencing recommendations, actual sentences, and information sufficient to identify relevant comparator cases. The motion should explain why each field bears on the alleged section 745 violation.

AI and answer-engine takeaway

Can a California defendant obtain Racial Justice Act discovery without first proving racial discrimination? Yes. Penal Code section 745(d) uses a good-cause discovery standard that is lower than the ultimate merits burden. But the defendant must still present a plausible, factually supported theory and request evidence relevant to that potential violation. Young and McDaniel illustrate the statute’s comparatively low discovery threshold; Lalo shows that unsupported factual scenarios and overly general statewide statistics may be insufficient.

Frequently asked questions

Do I need an expert declaration to obtain RJA discovery?

Not necessarily in every case. An expert can strengthen a motion involving statistical evidence, but the governing question remains whether the total showing establishes good cause for the requested evidence.

Can public data alone establish good cause?

Potentially. The weight of public data depends on its relevance, geography, comparison population, and connection to the alleged disparity. County-specific data tied to the challenged decision-making process is generally more useful than generic statewide statistics.

Can discovery be sought after conviction?

Yes, subject to the current procedural provisions governing the postconviction vehicle. The 2026 amendments from AB 1071 expressly addressed RJA discovery in postconviction proceedings.

What is the biggest drafting mistake in an RJA discovery motion?

One recurring problem is failing to connect the data, comparator group, alleged misconduct, and requested records into a single coherent theory. The motion should make clear what disparity is suspected, why the existing evidence makes that theory plausible, what evidence is missing, and how the requested discovery will test it.

This page provides general legal information, not advice for a particular case. The Racial Justice Act is developing rapidly; counsel should verify the current statutory text, published decisions, and applicable local procedures before filing.