People v. Williams (2026): Racial Justice Act Prima Facie Showings, Statistics, and Evidentiary Hearings

Current-law update: People v. Williams, E087071, was filed August 31, 2026 and certified for publication on September 17, 2026 by the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two. Because it is a published opinion, it is citable California authority. This article provides general legal information, not case-specific legal advice.

Direct answer: Williams is a useful 2026 Racial Justice Act decision on the threshold for obtaining an evidentiary hearing. The court held that the defendant had not made the required prima facie showing under Penal Code § 745. The opinion illustrates three recurring problems: statistics that are too broad to show a disparity among similarly situated defendants, allegations about a prosecutor who was not actually involved in the defendant’s case, and juror comments that, read in context, do not establish racial bias toward the defendant.

What is the prima facie standard under Penal Code § 745?

Under the California Racial Justice Act, a defendant seeking an evidentiary hearing must produce facts that, if true, establish a substantial likelihood that a violation of Penal Code § 745(a) occurred. Section 745 defines “substantial likelihood” as more than a mere possibility but less than a more-likely-than-not standard.

That threshold is important. A motion need not prove the ultimate RJA violation at the prima facie stage, but it must do more than identify a generalized concern about racial disparity or point to material that is disconnected from the defendant, the charged conduct, the relevant decision-maker, or a proper comparator group.

For a broader explanation of the statute, see our California Racial Justice Act (Penal Code § 745) guide. For postjudgment procedure, see California Racial Justice Act Habeas Petitions in 2026.

The three RJA theories raised in Williams

The defendant in Williams raised three principal theories. First, he relied on a juror’s voir dire discussion of having grown up around racist attitudes. Second, he pointed to public statements attributed to a deputy district attorney that civil-rights organizations had criticized as racist. Third, he relied on county-level statistics concerning sentence enhancements imposed on Black and White defendants.

The Court of Appeal concluded that none of the three theories satisfied the prima facie threshold for an evidentiary hearing.

1. Juror statements must be read in context

One asserted basis for relief was a juror’s statement during voir dire that he had “grown up with racism.” The court did not treat that statement as self-proving evidence of bias. Instead, it considered the full exchange. The juror described efforts to overcome attitudes encountered during his upbringing, gave an example of confronting a family member about racist speech, and indicated he could evaluate the evidence objectively.

The practical lesson is straightforward: an RJA analysis should preserve and examine the complete voir dire record, not merely isolate a phrase that appears troubling when removed from context. The question under § 745(a)(1) is whether the relevant actor exhibited bias or animus toward the defendant because of race, ethnicity, or national origin.

This context-sensitive approach is consistent with the California Supreme Court’s 2026 RJA language cases. See our discussion of Bankston and Barrera.

2. Misconduct by a prosecutor who was not “in the case” may not establish a § 745(a)(1) claim

The defendant also relied on public statements attributed to a deputy district attorney whose statements had been criticized as reflecting hostility toward African Americans. But the appellate court emphasized the statutory phrase “an attorney in the case.” The record showed that the deputy district attorney was not the assigned prosecutor and appeared only on two occasions to continue the matter. The defendant presented no evidence that the attorney otherwise worked on the prosecution or interacted with the jury.

Williams therefore illustrates an important evidentiary point: proof that a government lawyer made racist or racially hostile statements somewhere else does not automatically establish an RJA violation in a different defendant’s case. Counsel must connect the actor to the case and connect the alleged bias to the defendant in a manner that satisfies the statutory theory being asserted.

3. Generalized racial-disparity statistics may be insufficient without proper comparators

The statistical issue in Williams is especially important for RJA litigation. The defendant relied on a countywide statistic asserting that Black defendants received sentence enhancements at a higher rate than White defendants. The court concluded that the showing was too generalized to establish a prima facie claim.

For claims under § 745(a)(3) and related disparity provisions, the statute focuses on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who engaged in similar conduct and were similarly situated. A broad aggregate disparity can be relevant evidence, but it does not necessarily answer the statutory comparator question.

The court noted that the statistic grouped materially different enhancements together, including different types of firearm, gang, prior-record, and recidivist enhancements. Without a meaningful connection between the data and defendants comparable to Williams, the statistic did not establish more than a mere possibility of a qualifying RJA violation.

For a deeper treatment of comparator design, charging data, statistical significance, race-neutral explanations, and discovery, see California Racial Justice Act Discovery in 2026: Good Cause, Statistical Evidence, and Penal Code § 745(d).

What Williams means for RJA statistical motions

Williams should not be read to mean that statistical evidence is disfavored. Penal Code § 745 expressly contemplates comparative and statistical proof, and the statute does not require statistical significance in every case. The point is narrower: the statistics offered must be sufficiently tied to the statutory comparison being made.

A stronger statistical presentation ordinarily identifies the relevant decision, population, time period, offense or conduct category, charging or sentencing variable, county or prosecutorial unit, comparator group, and case-selection criteria. Counsel should also be prepared to explain why the compared defendants are similarly situated even if they are not identical in every respect.

Depending on the theory, potentially important variables may include offense conduct, prior record, enhancements, plea posture, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, prosecutorial office, sentencing judge, time period, and available race-neutral explanations. The objective is not to over-control the data until disparity disappears, but to construct a comparison that actually maps onto the statutory question.

What evidence should accompany a prima facie RJA motion?

Williams reinforces the value of particularized evidentiary support. Depending on the claim, counsel should consider assembling:

• the complete voir dire or trial transcript rather than isolated quotations;
• documents establishing the role of the attorney, officer, expert, judge, or juror whose conduct is challenged;
• declarations or records connecting the alleged bias to the defendant or proceeding;
• charging and sentencing records for meaningful comparator cases;
• clear definitions for the population included in any statistical analysis;
• the underlying source data rather than only a headline percentage;
• an explanation of why the compared defendants engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated;
• documentary exhibits supporting factual allegations; and
• where necessary, a focused request for state-held discovery under Penal Code § 745(d).

Williams and the difference between discovery and an evidentiary hearing

The RJA contains different procedural thresholds for different stages. Discovery under § 745(d) is governed by a good-cause standard. An evidentiary hearing requires a prima facie showing establishing a substantial likelihood of a violation. Ultimate relief requires proof under the standards in § 745(a).

Those standards should not be collapsed into one another. Evidence insufficient to prove a violation may still support targeted discovery, while evidence sufficient to raise a general concern may still fall short of the prima facie threshold for an evidentiary hearing. Good RJA briefing identifies the specific procedural stage and applies the correct burden to it.

Frequently asked questions

Does a defendant have to prove an RJA violation before receiving an evidentiary hearing?

No. The prima facie standard is lower than the ultimate burden. But the defendant must allege facts that, if true, establish a substantial likelihood of a violation—more than a mere possibility.

Are broad countywide statistics enough?

Not necessarily. Williams shows that aggregate statistics may be too general when they combine materially different offenses, enhancements, or defendants and do not establish a comparison involving similar conduct and similarly situated individuals.

Must comparator defendants be identical?

No. Penal Code § 745 does not require identical comparators. But the proponent still must explain why the selected cases are sufficiently similar for the statutory comparison.

Can racist statements by a prosecutor support an RJA claim if that prosecutor did not handle the case?

Not automatically. Williams emphasized that § 745(a)(1) refers to an “attorney in the case.” A showing should establish the attorney’s actual connection to the prosecution and the relevance of the alleged bias to the defendant.

Does a juror’s admission of past exposure to racist attitudes prove bias?

No automatic rule applies. Williams looked at the juror’s full voir dire answers and concluded that the cited exchange did not establish bias toward the defendant.

Primary authority

• People v. Williams, E087071 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026), published September 17, 2026.
• California Penal Code § 745.

Related RJA resources: Penal Code § 745 pillar guide · Racial Justice Act Resources · Discovery and statistical evidence · Habeas and prima facie review · RJA remedies.

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

This article provides general information about California law and does not constitute legal advice. RJA claims are fact-specific and procedure-specific.