In re Haney (2026): Racial Justice Act Discovery Before a Habeas Petition
Quick answer: In re Haney (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 16, 2026, A170412) confirms an important 2026 California Racial Justice Act procedure point: a habeas petitioner may seek discovery under Penal Code section 745(d) before filing an RJA habeas petition and does not have to establish a prima facie case first. The opinion also confirms that the RJA’s statutory prima facie definition applies to habeas claims under Penal Code section 1473(e).
For lawyers developing a California Racial Justice Act claim, that sequence matters. Statistical data, comparator information, charging records, sentencing records, jury-selection material, and other evidence may be necessary to determine whether a viable claim can be pleaded at all. Haney reads the 2026 statutory amendments as eliminating the circular problem of requiring a petitioner to prove a claim before obtaining the evidence needed to investigate it.
What In re Haney decided
The published portion of In re Haney addressed four RJA issues arising from a habeas petition. While the case was pending, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Hazlett, and the Legislature’s 2025 amendments to the RJA took effect on January 1, 2026. Those developments resolved several of the questions before the Court of Appeal.
- Discovery is available in RJA habeas matters. The court concluded that Penal Code section 745(d) discovery applies to petitioners proceeding under Penal Code section 1473(e).
- Discovery may come before the petition. Section 1473(e)(2) now permits a motion for relevant evidence either during prosecution of the habeas petition or in preparation to file one.
- No prima facie showing is required before the discovery request. The court explained that the amended statutes allow investigation before the petitioner has established, or even pleaded, a prima facie case.
- The RJA prima facie standard governs RJA habeas claims. The definitions and legal thresholds in Penal Code section 745 control claims brought through section 1473(e).
- Peremptory challenges alone remain a separate issue. Following Hazlett, the court stated that an allegedly race-based peremptory challenge, standing alone, is not cognizable under section 745.
Why the discovery holding is important
RJA claims can depend on information held by prosecutors, courts, law-enforcement agencies, or other government entities. A defendant may suspect a racial disparity in charging, conviction, enhancements, plea treatment, or sentencing without having access to the underlying data needed to test that suspicion. The 2026 statutory framework expressly allows discovery to be used to develop the potential claim rather than treating discovery as a reward available only after the claim is already established.
This is especially significant for claims under Penal Code section 745(a)(3) and (a)(4), where the analysis can turn on similarly situated comparators and frequency evidence. The quality of the comparator design still matters. A broad request untethered to the alleged disparity may fail even though discovery is procedurally available. Counsel should define the suspected disparity, relevant decision point, jurisdiction, time period, offenses or conduct, requested variables, and the comparison group as specifically as the available facts permit.
The 2026 statutory change
Effective January 1, 2026, California amended Penal Code sections 745 and 1473. Section 745(d) now authorizes a defendant or petitioner, in a proceeding alleging a potential RJA violation, to seek disclosure of relevant evidence in the possession or control of the state. Section 1473(e)(2) expressly permits a petitioner or counsel to seek that evidence while prosecuting an RJA habeas petition or in preparation to file one.
The Judicial Council has likewise described the 2026 amendments as allowing RJA discovery in preparation for a habeas petition and as making the section 745 definitions applicable to RJA habeas claims. That procedural alignment is important because it reduces the risk that general habeas pleading rules will be used to impose a higher threshold than the RJA itself specifies.
The prima facie standard after Haney
Haney also addresses which prima facie test applies when an RJA claim is brought through habeas corpus. Penal Code section 745(h) now states that its definition applies both within section 745 and for a petition under section 1473(e). Section 1473(e)(1) similarly provides that the definitions and legal thresholds in section 745 control RJA claims asserted in habeas proceedings.
That point should be read together with the site’s discussion of People v. Williams and RJA prima facie evidence. A prima facie inquiry is not a full evidentiary trial. The question is whether the properly alleged facts, if true and evaluated under the statutory threshold, warrant moving the RJA claim forward.
How to frame an RJA discovery request after Haney
Haney does not mean every broad request must be granted. The statute still requires the moving party to identify the type of records or information sought, and relevance remains central. A useful request should connect the requested material to a potential section 745(a) theory rather than simply requesting every criminal-justice record in a county.
- Identify the specific RJA theory being investigated: biased language or conduct, charging disparity, conviction disparity, or sentencing disparity.
- Define the decision point and population to be compared, including the relevant county and period.
- Request variables needed to determine whether individuals are similarly situated rather than seeking only race and outcome.
- Ask for data dictionaries, coding definitions, missing-data information, and record-layout documentation so the data can be interpreted correctly.
- Preserve requests for underlying source records when aggregate statistics alone cannot establish how cases were classified.
For a deeper discussion of comparator design and statistical proof, see California Racial Justice Act Discovery in 2026: Good Cause, Statistical Evidence, and Penal Code § 745(d).
Haney, Montes, and the developing postconviction discovery framework
Haney is part of a broader 2026 development in California postconviction evidence access. In Montes v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeal addressed access to prosecution jury-selection notes under Penal Code section 1054.9. The cases arise under different statutory provisions, but together they underscore a practical point: record development is often a distinct phase of postconviction litigation and should not be collapsed into the ultimate merits determination.
Primary authorities
- In re Haney, A170412 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2026) — certified for partial publication.
- Judicial Council materials on the 2026 RJA amendments — explaining discovery in preparation for habeas and the application of section 745 definitions.
- California Racial Justice Act (Penal Code § 745) — the site’s main RJA legal-authority guide.
- Racial Justice Act Resources — cases, practice materials, and related RJA analysis.
Bottom line
In re Haney is significant because it makes the 2026 RJA sequencing rule concrete: discovery under section 745(d) can be used to investigate and prepare an RJA habeas claim before the petition is filed, and a petitioner need not first make the prima facie showing that the requested discovery may be needed to develop. For counsel, the practical task is therefore not merely to ask for data, but to design a focused request capable of producing evidence that can be meaningfully analyzed under section 745.
Legal review: Okorie Okorocha, J.D., M.S., M.S. Updated September 22, 2026. This article is educational information and is not a substitute for case-specific legal advice.
