California’s Racial Justice Act

California’s Racial Justice Act (RJA), enacted in 2020 and codified at Penal Code § 745, is a landmark statute that prohibits a conviction or sentence that is “sought, obtained, or imposed based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.” It opened a new avenue of relief for defendants by allowing them to litigate both explicit and implicit bias that tainted any phase of the criminal process, from the first police encounter through sentencing. The Act’s focus on systemic bias recognizes that discrimination rarely appears in a single overt act; it is more often woven into patterns of charging, jury selection, and punishment. By embedding the RJA in the Penal Code, the Legislature made clear that equal justice is not merely aspirational; it is enforceable.

Understanding how these legal updates apply within the criminal process is essential for defendants. Navigating charges related to discrimination when it comes to conviction requires familiarity with updated definitions and procedures specific to the region.

The original California Racial Justice Act applied only to sentences imposed on or after January 1, 2021. Assembly Bill 256, known as the Racial Justice for All Act, eliminates that limitation through a staged retroactivity schedule:

• Death-sentenced defendants and people facing potential immigration consequences may petition immediately, regardless of conviction date.
• Beginning January 1, 2024, anyone incarcerated on a felony conviction may file, even if the judgment is decades old.
• As of January 1, 2025, relief extends to all felony convictions entered after 2015, regardless of whether the petitioner is still in custody.
• On January 1, 2026, every felony conviction and juvenile commitment, no matter how old, becomes eligible.

The bill also clarified procedural rules, creating an unmistakable mandate for courts to resolve racial-bias claims promptly and in the light most favorable to the protection of constitutional rights.

Section 745 sets out four core violations. A defendant must show any one of them by a preponderance of the evidence:

• Bias or animus was expressed toward the defendant by a judge, prosecutor, defense lawyer, law-enforcement officer, expert witness, or juror.
• Racially discriminatory language evincing animus was used by any of those participants during the case.
• People of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin were charged or convicted of more serious offenses than similarly situated people of other groups under analogous facts.
• People of the defendant’s group received harsher sentences than similarly situated individuals of other groups.

The statute expressly reaches implicit or unintentional bias. Proof may be direct, such as a racial slur by a detective, or indirect, such as statistical evidence that the charging DA offers plea deals to defendants of one race 30 percent more often than to defendants of another.

A petitioner must establish a § 745 violation by “more likely than not,” a standard far below the constitutional burden at trial. Acceptable proof includes:

• Court data: County-wide statistics comparing charging or sentencing patterns across racial groups.
• Comparative case files: Examples of similarly situated defendants of different races receiving different outcomes.
• Official statements: Social-media posts, text messages, courtroom remarks, or training materials showing bias.
• Expert testimony: Social scientists can translate raw data into clear inferences about bias, while mental health experts can explain how implicit bias operates.

Defense counsel should serve subpoenas early, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1985 applies in criminal cases to lock down data before it disappears. When governmental entities resist, practitioners can rely on the Public Records Act and due-process case law to compel production.

Section 745 authorizes motions at three procedural junctures:

• Pretrial: Before jury selection, seeking dismissal or suppression of tainted evidence.
• During trial: As soon as discriminatory conduct surfaces (for example, a Batson-type pattern in peremptory strikes).
• Postconviction: Through a petition to vacate the judgment or for resentencing.

Defense lawyers should file written motions that:

• State the statutory grounds.
• Summarize the facts showing disparate treatment.
• Attach exhibits or declarations establishing the pattern.
• Request specific remedies, dismissal, charge reduction, new trial, or resentencing.

Courts must hold a hearing if the motion makes a prima facie showing. If the People fail to rebut, the court must grant appropriate relief.

California juries already receive a baseline instruction, CALCRIM No. 101, that tells them not to let bias influence their verdict. After California’s Racial Justice Act, the Judicial Council added CALCRIM No. 209 (“Implicit or Unconscious Bias”), which educates jurors on how stereotypes can shade perception and decision-making. Defense counsel should:

• Request CALCRIM 209 in every trial where bias might be an issue.
• Ask the court to amplify it with language reflecting § 745’s statutory promise of racial neutrality.
• Seek voir dire questions that probe implicit attitudes, such as whether a juror believes certain ethnic groups are more crime-prone.

If the prosecution’s theory relies on gang membership, for example, counsel can seek CALCRIM No. 1403 with added admonitions against racial profiling. A judge’s refusal to instruct on implicit bias can itself be grounds for a § 745 motion, because the omission allows bias to operate unchecked.

When the court finds a § 745 violation, the remedies are broad:

• Vacatur of conviction and a new trial.
• Reduction of charges to the level that would have been pursued absent bias.
• Resentencing on the existing conviction without discriminatory enhancements or exceptional circumstances.
• Striking of punishment enhancements, such as gang or firearm add-ons, where data show they were imposed disproportionately.
• Dismissal of the death penalty or LWOP findings when racial bias tainted the charging decision.
• Adjustment of fines, fees, and restitution if disparate economic sanctions created a racially skewed outcome.

The court may also require training for law-enforcement agencies or DA offices and may refer egregious actors to the State Bar or Commission on Judicial Performance.

Successful petitions share standard features:

• Early data collection: Gather County and statewide statistics on charging and sentencing by race.
• Comparator analysis: Identify cases with near-identical facts, same offense level, prior record, and victim impact, where defendants of different races received leniency.
• Document preservation: Issue letters demanding retention of body-camera footage, emails, and personnel records.
• Expert collaboration: Pair criminologists (for quantitative analysis) with cultural-competence experts (for qualitative insight).
• Storytelling: Present the numbers in a narrative that shows how discrimination unfolded in the client’s life.

• Challenge peremptory strikes that remove Black, Latino, Asian American, or Indigenous jurors by showing a historical pattern in the prosecutor’s office.
• Contest gang enhancements where racial stereotypes drive the decision to allege a gang nexus.
• Attack “strike priors” used against defendants of some races at a higher rate, seeking resentencing without Three-Strikes exposure.
• Leverage immigration prejudice: Demonstrate that non-citizens of certain ethnic groups receive harsher plea offers.
• Use implicit-bias science to explain misidentifications in cross-racial eyewitness testimony.

The Racial Justice for All Act transforms equal protection from principle to practice. It provides defendants and their advocates with the tools to uncover and remedy previously invisible discrimination. Whether you are preparing for trial, appealing a conviction, or seeking resentencing years later, Penal Code § 745 offers a pathway to relief. Strategic use of jury instructions, meticulous data analysis, and timely motion practice can level the playing field that has tilted against communities of color for generations.

At Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, we can guide you through every stage of the process, from gathering the first spreadsheet of charging statistics to arguing for dismissal or a lighter sentence in court. Justice delayed does not have to remain justice denied; the statute’s retroactive reach means it is never too late to challenge a racially tainted outcome.

Prompt consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney, especially one familiar with Los Angeles County policies, remains the single best way to protect your freedom and your record. For more information, contact Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc. at (323) 464-6453 or through our online form.