WOODLAND, CA – Although acknowledging the arguments, a judge here in Yolo County Superior Court denied a request by Deputy Public Defender Courtney Leavitt Tuesday to dismiss all charges brought against the accused “in the interest of justice” because of racial bias.
Leavitt told the court the language in the case files used by police has influenced the way the case against her client had progressed, who is facing four misdemeanor charges resisting/obstructing a public officer, assault, trespassing and disturbing by loud/unreasonable noise.
The accused was charged following an incident at a Starbucks, said Deputy District Attorney Ashley Harvey explained the incident report states the accused “came in to report a collision” and actions subsequently occurred there.
DDA Harvey added the report noted the accused chased the other party around the counter of the Starbucks store, before being stopped by an employee.
DDA Harvey claimed the accused was then able to grab various items, including cups and a trash can, throwing them around as she exited the store, referring to brief camera footage confirming the encounter.
DPD Leavitt’s defense heavily relied on perceived racist biases made against the accused and how those biases impacted the case, emphasizing the charges lack “criminal conduct” and urged the court to consider this throughout the hearing.
DPD Leavitt began the day’s pretrial hearing by stating, “What happened here is a culmination of different biases,” and the descriptors used by the police in the case files have influenced the charges and the way the case has been handled.
The DPD urged the court to “look past these biases,” adding, “the language in the report itself may have been affected by the same biases,” and asking for a dismissal in the interest of justice.
“A dismissal here would not be in the interest of justice, it would be a dismissal of the accused’s actions,” said DDA Harvey, admitting she was “not discrediting the racism the accused may experience in her daily life,” but according to the facts of the case “this would not be in the interest of justice to dismiss any of the counts.”
Judge Daniel M. Wolk noted the witnesses, consisting of employees and customers, and their own recollection of the events, are consistent with the report.
Judge Wolk said he understands what DPD Leavitt is attempting to argue, but said the argument is built entirely on unproven claims.
DPD Leavitt insisted the way people are reacting to the accused “is based on biases against Black women,” noting a “745 motion” may be filed to prohibit the state from seeking criminal conviction based on the accused’s race.
DPD Leavitt specifically focused on the use of the word “chasing” and identified it as “part of the problem of perception,” adding the language and responses suggest an implicit bias and “the case cannot be divorced from those racist biases (because) those biases don’t just go away, they have to be acknowledged and as we acknowledge them, we see this isn’t really criminal conduct here.”
DDA Harvey said there is race-blind charging because race, ethnicity, age, and name are not included in the report, and that a dismissal is not in the interest of justice.
Judge Wolk said there are valid concerns being raised, but the facts of the case and number of witnesses are concerning and he does not see them as worthy of being dismissed in the interest of justice.
Wolk did note “the court does not discount the absolutely valid grounds raised by DPD Leavitt,” but denied the dismissal motion and set a pretrial conference for Oct. 21.
