WOODLAND, CA – Deputy Public Defender Sara Johnson pointed out “dehumanizing” treatment of the accused, who was presented “shirtless” in front of an all-white jury, signifying a violation of the Racial Justice Act, here at a resentencing hearing Thursday in Yolo County Superior Court.
Johnson charged officers had used “animal imagery” to describe the incident scene when they reported “three young Black men had surrounded the area, like a pack of wolves.”
And the defense added law enforcement had used the N-word around “100 times” during the prior murder trial, although Deputy District Attorney Stephanie Zeitlin claimed these mentions were a result of a witness’s comments.
The accused is facing multiple felony convictions including murder in the second degree, discharge of a firearm, accessory to felony, and carrying a loaded firearm with several extensions such as street gang affiliation.
After noting the matter will be taken under submission and the court will issue a written ruling, Judge Daniel P. Maguire allowed DPD Johnson to submit a written brief and proceed with her argument.
DPD Johnson emphasized the relevance of the case to the accused’s situation, asserting, “law enforcement used racial apartheid during trial, adding racially discriminatory language such as the N word was used more than 100 times during trial.”
DPD Johnson added that the law enforcement described the crime scene by stating “three young black men surrounded him like a pack of wolves,” asserting that this portrayal used animal imagery and amounted to racial discrimination.,
In response to the DA’s previous statement asserting the defense has failed to define racialized context, DPD Johnson noted the accused was presented in front of the jury without a shirt just to show his tattoos.
DPD Johnson continued to describe this treatment of the accused as “dehumanizing,” arguing “the jury was largely white, the judge was white, and the attorneys were white.”
The public defender said the courtroom was “unbalanced” as she drew parallels between the accused’s position and a slave auction in establishing racialized context.
In conclusion to her argument, DPD Johnson requested the court consider an evidentiary hearing, stating, “I believe preponderance of evidence showing has been made.”
DDA Zeitlin responded to the defense argument by stating that “the use of the N word was stated as a witness statement…signifying contextual nature,” alleging there was “evidence of gang affiliation.”
DDA Zeitlin maintained it was “an overstretch to say that the shirt removal violated the RJA.”
In her final statement, DPD Johnson urged the court to review the briefs, noting that “all arguments are laid out in the brief.”
Judge Maguire ruled the matter was submitted and noted the court will issue a final decision in writing.
