California Racial Justice Act Summary
Request for Relief The California Racial Justice Act
A BRIEF SUMMARY
Pen. Code, § 745 says that a defendant who is not in jail can ask to have a conviction or sentence thrown out if it was sought, obtained, or imposed because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin in contravention of the law. A person who is in jail can ask for this remedy by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (See § 86:18).
If the defendant can prove by a preponderance of the evidence of any of the following, they have broken the law:
(1) The judge, a lawyer in the case, a police officer participating in the case, an expert witness, or a juror showed bias or animus against the defendant because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin.
(2) During the defendant’s trial, in court and during the proceedings, the judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror, used racially discriminatory language about the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful. If the person speaking is quoting language used by someone else that is important to the case, or if the person speaking is presenting a racially neutral and unbiased physical description of the suspect, this paragraph does not apply.
(3) The defendant was charged with or found guilty of a worse crime than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who did the same thing and were in the same situation. The evidence shows that the prosecution more often sought or got convictions for worse crimes against people who share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the convictions were sought or obtained.
(4) (A) The defendant got a longer or harsher sentence than other people who were convicted of the same crime and were in the same situation. People of the same race, ethnicity, or national origin as the defendant were more likely to get longer or harsher sentences for that crime than people of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in the county where the sentence was given.
(B) The defendant got a longer or harsher sentence than other people who were found guilty of the same crime and were in the same situation. In the county where the sentence was imposed, longer or harsher sentences were more often given for the same crime when the victims were of one race, ethnicity, or national origin than when the victims were of other races, ethnicities, or national origins.
The trial court must convene a hearing to decide if the accusations are true if a defendant provides a prima facie showing that they broke Pen. Code, § 745. The court can’t look at the evidence or decide if witnesses are telling the truth while deciding if a prima facie case has been made. The trial court must instead look at whether the motion and the evidence that supports it express facts that, “if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation” occurred… Finley v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.5th 12 at 23, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 907 at 915 (2023). The court should also “not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations, except in the rare case where the record ‘irrefutably establishes’ that a defendant’s allegations are false.” See Finley at 23, which quotes People v. Harden, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 56, 296 Cal.Rptr.3d 634 (2022).
Burden of Proof: The defendant has to show that § 745(a) was broken by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing on the motion. The defendant has to prove any of the following to meet this burden:
(1) The judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or a juror showed bias or animus toward the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin; (2) During the defendant’s trial, in court and during the proceedings, the judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or a juror used racially discriminatory language about the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise showed bias or animus toward the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not it was on purpose. This paragraph doesn’t apply if the person speaking is describing language used by another person that is important to the case or if the person speaking is giving a racially neutral and unbiased physical description of the suspect. The defendant need not show that purposeful discrimination occurred in the exercise of peremptory challenges to establish a violation; (4) The defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who commit similar offenses and are similarly situated, and the evidence establishes that the prosecution more frequently sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the convictions were sought or obtained; (5) A more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people that share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin than on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in the county where the sentence was imposed; or (6) A more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than on other similarly situated defendants convicted of the same offense, and more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for the same offense on defendants in cases with victims of one race, ethnicity, or national origin than in cases with victims of other races, ethnicities, or national origins, in the county where the sentence was imposed.
What do these words mean? This part gives definitions for “more frequently sought or obtained” or “more frequently imposed”; “prima facie showing”; “racially discriminatory language”; and “state” (see Pen. Code, § 745(h)).
At the hearing, both sides can submit evidence. This can include, but is not limited to, statistical evidence, aggregate data, expert testimony, and the sworn testimony of witnesses. The court may also hire an expert who is not connected to the case.
Court conclusions: The court must write down its conclusions of fact at the end of the session.
Remedy: The court must choose one of the following remedies that fits the violation:
(A) Remedies before a judgment has been made:
- Reseat a juror who was removed by a peremptory challenge; 2. Declare a mistrial if the defendant asks for it; 3. Discharge the jury panel and empanel a new jury; or 4. If the court thinks it would be better for justice, dismiss enhancements, special circumstances, or special allegations, or lower one or more charges.
(B) After the judgment has been entered, the court must throw out the conviction and punishment and order new proceedings to fix the violation of Pen. Code, § 745. If the violation is based on a finding that the defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious crime than people of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who commit similar crimes and are in the same situation, and the evidence shows that the prosecution more often sought or got convictions for more serious crimes against people of the same race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the convictions were sought or obtained, the court may fix the violation by changing the judgment and throwing out the conviction and sentence, and giving the defendant an appropriate punishment for the violation that happened.
If the court concludes that solely the punishment was sought, received, or given in violation of Pen. Code, § 745, it will throw out the sentence and give a new one. When the court gives a fresh sentence, it can’t be longer than the one that was already given.
Other Options: If the court concludes that Pen. Code, § 745 has been broken, the defendant cannot be sentenced to death.
Pen. Code, § 745 gives people some options for fixing problems, but it doesn’t stop them from using additional options that are available under the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, or any other legislation.
Going back in time: Pen. Code, § 745(j) says that this part applies like thus:
(1) To all circumstances when the verdict is not final.
(2) Starting on January 1, 2023, this applies to all cases where the petitioner is sentenced to death or where the motion is filed under Section 1473.7 because of actual or potential immigration consequences related to the conviction or sentence, no matter when the judgment or disposition became final.
(3) Starting on January 1, 2024, this section will apply to all cases in which the petitioner is currently serving a sentence in state prison or county jail under subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or is committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a juvenile disposition, no matter when the judgment or disposition became final.
(4) Starting on January 1, 2025, this applies to all cases filed under Section 1473.7 or subdivision (f) of Section 1473 if the judgment was for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that led to a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice on or after January 1, 2015.
(5) Starting on January 1, 2026, for all cases filed under Section 1473.7 or subdivision (f) of Section 1473 where the judgment was for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that led to a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice, no matter when the judgment or disposition became final.
According to Pen. Code, § 745(k), petitions filed in cases where judgment was entered before January 1, 2021, and only in those cases, if the petition is based on a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), the petitioner shall be entitled to relief as provided in subdivision (e), unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation did not contribute to the judgment.
