Getting the Racial Justice Act to Actually Work

 

The Racial Justice Act is a relatively new law that makes it easier to show how racism or other bigotry may have impacted a criminal case.  Known also as RJA, AB 256, or AB 2542, this new law allows prison inmates to challenge their convictions or their sentences.  However, RJA motions are extremely difficult to win.  Therefore, an inmate who believes that race impacted their case would be wise to study other successful RJA motions to learn what works and what doesn’t.

 

Let us first examine six recent cases where defendants were able to overturn their convictions or drastically alter their sentence opportunities through RJA.  After that we can then extract common trends that characterize the successful motions.

 

Success case 1: Terryon Pugh and the Racist Police Officers:

 

Defendants Terryon Pugh, Eric Windom, Keyshawn McGee and Trent Allen had been charged in an alleged gang-related murder in Antioch. During RJA proceedings, evidence emerged of overt racism among the investigating officers – an FBI probe had uncovered Antioch police text messages filled with racist slurs (e.g. an officer wrote “I’m only stopping them cuz they black. … Kill each other.”).

 

In February 2024, Superior Court Judge David Goldstein ruled that racism within the Antioch Police Department tainted the murder investigation, violating the Racial Justice Act. The judge struck all gang enhancement charges (which could have led to life-without-parole sentences) against the defendants.

 

By May 2024, this RJA finding forced a favorable resolution: all four defendants secured a deal reducing their charges to manslaughter and removing the tainted gang enhancements, dramatically lowering their penalties. Instead of facing potential life terms, they received sentences ranging from 13 to 20 years.

 

Success case 2: Gary Bryant Jr. and Improper Rap Lyrics.

 

In October 2022, Contra Costa County Judge Clare Maier vacated the murder convictions of Gary Bryant Jr. and Diallo Jackson after finding that racial bias had infected their trial. The two Black men (aspiring rappers) had been convicted of a 2014 homicide; prosecutors at trial had introduced the defendants’ rap lyrics as evidence. Judge Maier ruled that using the rap lyrics “more likely than not” triggered the jury’s implicit bias against African-American men and thus violated California’s Racial Justice Act of 2020. She ordered a new trial for Bryant and Jackson under the RJA. (The district attorney disagreed with the ruling but said they would respect it and planned to refile charges.) This case was precedent-setting – it was the first time a California judge found that presentation of rap lyrics at trial had injected racial bias, warranting reversal of the convictions under the RJA.

 

Success case 3: Joseph Hayes and the Hispanic/Choctaw Over-Re-Sentencing

 

Joseph Hayes, a Hispanic man (also of Choctaw descent) convicted for a 1995 robbery-murder, alleged that racial bias tainted his recent post-conviction re-sentencing. After changes in felony-murder law made him eligible for a re-sentencing, prosecutors agreed to drop his life sentence but proposed a 69-year term – far longer than similarly situated white defendants would receive for the same offense. Hayes’ attorney filed a RJA motion with statistical evidence to show the proposed sentence was disproportionately harsh due to his race.
 

A Santa Clara County judge intervened before ruling on the RJA motion. In chambers, the judge indicated he would resentence Hayes to secure his immediate release, effectively rejecting the extreme sentence (and obviating a formal RJA ruling). Hayes was freed after 25 years in prison – a successful outcome that removed the life term and avoided the racially skewed 69-year sentence.

 

Success Case 4: Jamon Buggs and the DA’s Slip of the Tongue

 

Orange County saw a high-profile RJA win in 2022 in the case of Jamon Buggs, a Black defendant convicted of a double murder in Newport Beach. During Buggs’ sentencing, Orange County Superior Court Judge Gregg Prickett found that District Attorney Todd Spitzer had violated the Racial Justice Act – reportedly the first time an elected DA in California was found to have breached the law.

 

The RJA motion centered on racist remarks Spitzer made in an October 2021 meeting while deciding whether to seek the death penalty against Buggs. Spitzer had asked if the defendant dated white women, suggesting a trope that Black men improve their circumstances by dating “white women.” The judge ruled that Spitzer’s comments reflected racial bias and violated the RJA’s ban on pursuing convictions or sentences based on race. As a result, Spitzer’s office was effectively disqualified from seeking death in this case – the death penalty was dropped – and Buggs was instead sentenced to life in prison with no chance of execution.

 

This outcome not only spared Buggs a potential death sentence but also put on record a clear RJA violation by the prosecutor. The Buggs case underscored that even a prosecutor’s behind-closed-doors statements can trigger relief under the Racial Justice Act, reinforcing the Act’s power to check racial bias at all levels of the justice process.

 

Success Case 5: Dana Stubblefield and the Closing Argument “Lynching”

 

In 2024, former NFL player Dana Stubblefield challenged his 2020 rape conviction, arguing the prosecutor’s closing argument injected racial bias. During trial, the prosecutor implied police gave Stubblefield lenient treatment “partly on the fact that he was a famous Black man,” suggesting officers avoided searching his home to prevent “a storm of controversy” – a coded reference to the George Floyd protests. The appellate court agreed that this “racially discriminatory language” appealed to racial bias and violated Penal Code §745.

 

In December 2024, California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed Stubblefield’s convictions (for rape, oral copulation, and false imprisonment), finding his conviction was sought or obtained in violation of the RJA. The court vacated the judgment as legally invalid and remanded for new proceedings, effectively overturning the conviction. Stubblefield was subsequently released from prison pending possible retrial. As of the writing of this article, it is not clear whether the DA will ever choose to re-charge Stubblefield.

 

Success Case 6: Adonte Bailey and the Black-Man Stereotypes

 

Adonte Bailey’s RJA motion argued implicit bias by the arresting officer, whose testimony exaggerated Bailey’s behavior to make him seem evasive and dangerous. Body camera footage and witnesses showed Bailey was compliant, yet the officer testified that Bailey was “ducking,” “bobbing,” and might flee – even remarking on arrest that he was “surprised [Bailey] didn’t run.” The officer also violated court orders by blurting out inadmissible comments to the jury.

 

An expert in race and criminal justice testified that the officer’s racially coded language and conduct likely triggered stereotypes in jurors’ minds. The judge found the cumulative effect of this implicit bias amounted to an RJA violation. In March 2025, a San Francisco judge granted Bailey’s RJA motion. As a remedy for the demonstrated bias, the court reduced Bailey’s felony convictions to misdemeanors. This post-conviction relief under the RJA lessened the severity of his convictions and corresponding penalties, recognizing that bias had unfairly tainted the original verdict.

 

Implications for Future Action

 

What can we learn from these success stories? I would suggest a few lessons for those considering an RJA motion:

 

• Concrete proof of bias moves courts. Wins often feature overt evidence (e.g., racist officer texts, prosecutorial remarks) or racially coded rhetoric that likely influenced jurors (e.g., “surprised he didn’t run,” use of rap lyrics) or officials (charging/sentencing decisions). Language-based and culture-based policing (e.g., reaction to Spanish speakers) also appears in the record.

• Experts and data are helpful. Statistical showings of disparities in stops, charging, gang enhancements, or sentencing, often paired with expert testimony on implicit bias, help meet the prima facie threshold and explain how “race-neutral” conduct triggers stereotypes.

• Remedies are tailored and meaningful. Courts have vacated convictions, struck enhancements, reduced charges (e.g., murder reduced to manslaughter), mitigated sentences, or foreclosed death eligibility when bias is shown.

• Posture matters. Robust records built in post‑conviction or resentencing contexts can succeed; several outcomes followed aggressive discovery or were cemented on appeal after initial resistance.

 

Steps to Increase Success

 

1. Build the bias record early and wide. Mine discovery for communications, body‑cam, charging memos; seek officer histories and office‑wide data. Use §745 to compel comparative charging/sentencing datasets.

 

1. Retain the right experts. Statistics, policing practices, and social psychology experts connect facts to racial impact and rebut pretextual explanations.

 

1. Frame implicit as well as explicit bias. Emphasize that the RJA covers unintentional discrimination, not just intentional; link language, imagery, and tactics to their likely effect on decision‑makers.

 

1. Ask for precise remedies. Match relief to harm: strike enhancements, exclude tainted proof, reduce charges/sentences, or seek a new trial.

 

1. Preserve and escalate. Make offers of proof, file detailed declarations, and, if denied, seek writs/appeals. Well‑developed records have produced reversals and leverage for favorable resolutions.

 

These learning-lessons and recommended steps are important considerations when looking to build a RJA case.  The RJA motions are very popular post-conviction remedies, but they are by no means easy to win.  Looking at what worked in the past is our best guide to what may help show how a conviction or sentence was impacted by racism or other forms of bigotry.  While we live in a society infused with elements of bigotry, we can at least see that California is moving in a more positive direction by allowing remedies for past wrongs.

 

 

 - - - 

 

Learn More:

 

To hear more insights from attorney Kristen Mason you can watch her interview at the 2025 CAA Town Hall, viewable at CaliforniaCAA.com/2025townhall. Please note that Ms. Mason is not available to offer free legal advice, as her time is dedicated to the law firm’s current clients. CAA can be reached at (866) 716-2805.