What is the Racial Justice Act?
After the police killing of George Floyd in June 2020, a call for transformative racial justice emerged from the streets. Former Public Defender and current State House representative Ash Kalra took up the challenge of racial justice reform, introducing the Racial Justice Act (AB 2542) to give individuals with active cases a tool to help prevent the racial disparities that define legal outcomes. Facing intense pressure from communities of color that have endured racism of the criminal legal system, the California Legislature adopted the Racial Justice Act in September 2020. Since then, the right to challenge convictions based on racist conduct/statements or proven statistical disparities has been extended retroactively (post-conviction) to all incarcerated people through RJA 2.0 (AB 256).
While families have been coming through De-Bug and other California participatory defense hub’s doors for decades explaining the racist conduct of various actors in the criminal legal system (cops, district attorneys, judges, defense attorneys), those truths have rarely had a space to impact the outcome in the Courts – until now. As we have learned in the last few years, the path to winning RJA motions and obtaining release is incredibly tough. Just as the community outrage in response to George Floyd’s killing helped establish the Racial Justice Act, it is our collective call to use the RJA to challenge the systemic issues of racial injustice in our communities and courts. We made this website in hopes to be a tool and source of information for those considering RJA claims in their own case or their loved one’s case.
The Racial Justice Act prohibits bias or discrimination in charging, conviction, and sentencing based on a defendant's race, ethnicity, or national origin. From our perspective, all RJA claims are placed into 2 different buckets. In one bucket, an RJA claim can be made for in-court expressions of bias or other bias directed at the individual facing charges. In the second bucket, an RJA claim can be made if there are statistical disparities in charging or sentencing that can be proven at the county-wide level.
Today, three years after the first version of the RJA, implementation has been slow-going. Many District Attorneys are refusing to hand over the data necessary to file statistical claims. Judges are interpreting the RJA according to their own understanding of race, the law, and what they think the proper remedy is.
Co-sponsors of AB 2542 - Racial Justice Act (2020)
-
American Friends Service Committee
-
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
-
CA Coalition for Women Prisoners (CCWP)
-
Californians United for a Responsible Budget (CURB)
-
NextGen
-
United Domestic Workers, AFSCME, Local 3930
Co-sponsors of AB 256 - Retroactive RJA (2022)
-
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
-
American Friends Service Committee
-
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
-
CA Coalition for Women Prisoners (CCWP)
-
Californians United for a Responsible Budget (CURB)
-
Initiate Justice
-
League of Women Voters of California
-
NextGen
-
Silicon Valley De-Bug
The Types of Racial Justice Act Claims:
BUCKET 1:
Statements & Conduct
BUCKET 2:
Data & Statistical
In-court and out-of-court expressions of bias made by system actors such as:
-
Police
-
District Attorneys
-
Judges
-
Defense Attorneys
-
Jurors
This is what is referred to as A1 and A2 claims under the Racial Justice Act.
Documented racial disparities with "similarly situated" charges and conduct – meaning one race is more frequently and more severely charged, convicted or sentenced more than other races, ethnicities or national origins. This is what is referred to as A3 and A4 claims under the Racial Justice Act
Racial Justice Act Chronicles
Below are examples of Racial Justice Act claims that were filed and supported by participatory defense hubs. The examples below are organized by 1) background on the case/interaction with the system, 2) the actual RJA claim and 3) the outcome of claim/case if it is available. The intention of this section is to take the RJA out of the abstract and give real life examples of claims so that families and organizers can strategize on how to use RJA in their loved one's case.
Examples of Racial Justice Act Claims
Mrs. B Was Called “Lazy” by the Cops
Background:
Mrs. B was in her car, asleep at the side of the road because the medication she takes makes her tired sometimes. So rather than drive, she responsibly pulled over to the side of the road to rest. Mrs. B is a 70 year old Black woman. Police came to check on her, and decided to see if she had been intoxicated. They brought her out of the car, multiple officers surrounded her and administered a breathalyzer (Preliminary Alcohol Screening) test. Due to her age and medical condition, she could not fully blow the amount of air required for the test. The cops mocked her, telling her children could do it. At one point, an officer said to her, ”I didn’t even hear you take a breath, see how lazy you are.”
RJA Claim:
That the officer called a 70 year old Black woman “lazy” was one of the Racial Justice Act violations offered by her defense attorney. The language exhibits racial bias against her as a Black woman. Referring to a Black person as “lazy” is a stereotype that has long been used against Black people and originates from slavery. The defense attorney brought in an expert to validate and give context to how the officer’s words against Mrs. B was racial bias.
Outcome:
After winning at the prima facie stage, the court found that there was no violation in the evidentiary hearing.
Mr. T Was Profiled for His Haircut
Background:
Mr. T is a 30-year old Latino man. On his way home from work, Mr. T was stopped by police, illegally searched, and arrested. Police claimed he had an assassin's haircut, they showed suspicion of his Aztec tattoos, and claimed his red clothing together indicated gang ties that justified the search. Mr. T won at the prima facie hearing when the defense explained that Mr. T cut his hair in observance of indigenous mourning practices. Mr. T's family are from an indigenous community in Mexico, and his red clothing was simply a fashion choice that an officer would not even notice if he was white.
RJA Claim:
Police were racially biased by profiling Mr. T as a gang member based upon his cultural haircut, tattoos, and his choice of clothing.
Outcome:
After winning at the prima facie stage, the DA dismissed the case.
Mr. A Was Profiled for Wearing a Religious Symbol
Background:
Mr. A is a middle-aged Latino man. As he was driving with his daughter moving into a new place, Mr. A was stopped for issues with reflectiveness on his bumper. Police saw the religious symbol Santa Muerte and questioned Mr. A why he wore it on his neck because he liked it. While police claimed that drug dealers "pray to that Saint so that way they don't get caught," an expert in Mexican culture noted the police had a criminalized understanding of the Santa Muerte symbol and explained Santa Muerte is, in fact, a protector of dispossessed or marginalized individuals.
RJA Claim:
Police profiled Mr. A as a drug dealer because of a cultural religious symbol.
Outcome:
After losing at the prima facie hearing, this case was downgraded from a felony to a misdemeanor without jail time, probation, or immigration consequences.
Mr. D Was Pulled Over in a Pretextual Stop
Background:
Mr. D was driving the speed limit on the freeway when a police car followed him off an exit for several lights before pulling him over for the reason of "impeding traffic" because he was "driving too slow." When pulled over, the officers approached Mr. D by saying, "What's up bro?" and other very informal language, including a compliment of his shoes. They proceeded to ask if Mr. D was on probation without having any indication that he was, which eventually led to a search.
RJA Claim:
The officers pulled over Mr. D in a pretextual stop (impeding traffic) and then immediately asked if he was on probation, used informal language like "What's up bro" in the way they spoke to him. Mr. D and the participatory defense hub raised this issue to his defense team, claiming that both the asking if Mr. D was on probation and the informal and unprofessional use of language was in direct relationship to Mr. D being a young Black man and that the officers would not have conducted themselves in the same way if Mr. D were a white man. The defense attorney had an expert on racial profiling detail both the concept of "driving while Black" and the disproportionate pretext stops for Black folks. The expert also detailed why the probation question and informal language were all symptomatic of the stop being racially biased.
Outcome:
After winning his prima facie hearing, Mr. D later lost his evidentiary hearing and a writ was filed by the defense attorney. The case is ongoing.
Mr. L was Racially Profiled and Subjected to Excessive Force
Background:
Mr. L is a 25 year old Latino male who was simply walking home. Not being a suspect of any crime, Officer Yamamoto still decided to run a warrant check on Mr. L. Yamamoto initiated a pedestrian stop and ordered Mr. L to sit on the curb. However, Mr L shared that he recently met with his probation officer and began to walk away. The officer did not tell him he was under arrest , or instruct him to stop nor attempted to continue to physically or verbally detain him. This led to Officer Yamamoto tackling and drawing his firearm directly at Mr L. He expressed his health concerns yelling out “they're going to kill me.”
RJA Claim:
Mr. L is a prime example of racial profiling and the targeted surveillance of Black and Brown communities. Officer Yamamoto’s bias was demonstrated in the amount of excessive force he inflicted on Mr. L. Instead of a cite and release as per the Gilroy Police Department’s policy manual for bench and arrest warrants, Officer Yamamoto tackled Mr. L, pointed his gun, and delayed activating his body-worn camera. He violated Mr. L’s civil rights and skirted accountability, even when Mr. L was already on the floor face down. Additionally, Mr. L, while tackled, expressed pain which was ignored. This is another disparity in the treatment of pain by law enforcement by under-treating and under-estimating pain experienced by Black and Brown people of color. It is seen as psychological rather than physical.
Charges dismissed in the interest of justice before the Prima Facie hearing was held.
Outcome:
Mr. R was stereo-typed based on his appearance and mocked for his cultural tradition
Background:
Mr. R was originally stopped for a traffic violation close to midnight. Officers asked if he listened to narcocorridos (a Mexican music genre) based on his appearance and if he himself was involved in the cartel. The officers continued to search Mr. R and took a look at his driver's license. They saw that his birthday was the same date he was being detained. The officer mocked Mr. R and told him "happy birthday" while playing Las Mañanitas (Mexican Happy Birthday song) on his cell phone, all while Mr. R was sitting in handcuffs.
Officers associated Mr. R with drug dealing because of the music he was listening to. They also mocked him by playing and singing a traditional Mexican happy birthday song while he was in handcuffs on the sidewalk to humiliate him.
RJA Claim:
Mr. R lost his Prima Facie hearing but the case is ongoing.
Outcome:
DA Expert Gives Racist Testimony
Background:
The prosecution's hired expert was asked a few questions about intimate partner battery before being asked “What about accusations of infidelity and if that comes up in circumstances of intimate partner violence?” As the expert testifies she realizes the defendant is Latino so her response turns into stereotyping a whole community in front of a jury ”Oh that’s a very constant thing. I see this especially in the latinx community where…” The defense tries to object but gets overruled by the judge and without being asked to continue or elaborate the expert doubles down by repeating her self “I see this [accusations of infidelity] a lot in the LatinX community.”
RJA Claim:
The claim is that the expert had bias in her testimony trying to tie stereotyped bias as factual truth even when asked a question that was not related to ethnic or race. Another claim is that the DA had bias for not correcting or trying to stop their own expert when it was their turn to question the witness. Also for the reason that the expert they hired had their license suspended prior to testifying for this case.
Outcome:
The prima facie stage has resulted in the court denying an RJA violation on the District attorney but finding bar has been to continue to an evidentiary hearing on the the claim being raised against the expert and her testimony.
SJPD Violently Rips Mr. C Out of Vehicle After Routine Traffic Stop, Threatens Pepper Spray, Then Mocks Request for Medical Assistance
Background:
San Jose police violently pulled Mr. C out of his car in downtown San Jose for a routine traffic stop, alleging that they saw him on his phone while driving. Within 60 seconds of approaching Mr. C's driver window, Mr. C was dragged out of his car while his seatbelt was still attached and was handcuffed while being put in the back of a police vehicle, all while being threatened to be pepper sprayed. Mr. C was hurt during the altercation, stating he needed to go to the hospital. One SJPD Officer mocked the medical needs of the Mr. C, telling an EMT that he is “not going to the hospital” and saying he is just suffering from "incarceritis."
RJA Claim:
The claim for Mr. C was the racial profiling by police to not only pull over Mr. C at night, claiming to have seen him on his phone, but then to violently and aggressively rip Mr. C out of the car. The stop itself along with the violent response to Mr. C was enough to iniate a prima facie hearing for the RJA claim. The medical neglect and insistance that Mr. C was faking an injury after police violently pulled him out is also a historical racial bias of not believing a black person's pain and medical needs.
Outcome:
After winning at the prima facie stage, the court found that there was enough to move forward with an evidentiary hearing.
Find a participatory defense hub to support you in your Racial Justice Act claim
Participatory defense is a community organizing model for people facing charges, their families, and communities to impact the outcomes of cases and transform the landscape of power in the court system. There is a national network of participatory defense hubs around the country including many in California.
All participatory defense hubs hold weekly meetings where families who have loved ones facing criminal or immigration cases can come, put their loved ones name on the board and collectively brainstorm next steps with others also fighting for their loved ones' freedom. For those looking for support with a Racial Justice Act motion, hubs can be spaces to help think through your claim and help with communicating with your defense attorney
You can find a participatory defense hub by clicking on the link below and visiting the National Participatory Defense Network website with a complete list of current hubs. The directory is in alphabetical order by city to help find the nearest hub to you.
Please note that the Racial Justice Act that this website references is a California law.
