Judge Finds Implicit Bias in Police Testimony, Grants Relief to Black Defendant
SAN FRANCISCO – In a first of its kind ruling, a San Francisco judge has granted the city’s first successful motion under the California Racial Justice Act (RJA), recognizing that implicit bias influenced a police officer’s testimony in the case of a young Black man.
The ruling, issued this week, led to the reduction of felony convictions to misdemeanors for the defendant, 22-year-old Adonte Bailey, marking a significant victory for racial justice advocates and public defenders in the city.
This case sets an important precedent in the ongoing fight against systemic racial bias in California’s legal system. San Francisco Public Defenders—who have filed multiple RJA motions since the law’s enactment in 2021—called the ruling a landmark moment in efforts to hold law enforcement and the courts accountable for implicit bias that disproportionately impacts Black and Brown defendants.
Bailey was arrested after police received a report of a man standing on the street holding a gun. However, video evidence and witness testimony later contradicted the arresting officer’s portrayal of Bailey’s behavior, which the judge found to be tainted by implicit bias.
At the time of the arrest, the officer’s body-worn camera captured him making a telling remark: “I was a little surprised he didn’t run.”
Public defenders argued that this statement reflected a racially biased expectation that a Black man encountering police would flee.
During Bailey’s trial, the officer amplified this racial bias by falsely claiming that Bailey had been acting evasive, “ducking,” “bobbing,” and “darting”—despite video evidence showing that Bailey was cooperative throughout the interaction. Other witnesses also testified that Bailey had not acted evasively, directly contradicting the officer’s account.
Adding to the concerns over due process, the officer ignored court orders by making inadmissible statements in front of the jury, further painting Bailey in a prejudicial light.
Bailey’s defense team, led by Deputy Public Defender Diamond Ward, argued that these racially coded descriptions and the officer’s courtroom conduct violated the California Racial Justice Act, which protects defendants from racially biased treatment in policing, charging, and sentencing.
The California Racial Justice Act, passed in 2020 and expanded in 2022, was designed to remedy racial bias in criminal proceedings. The law explicitly recognizes that implicit bias, even if unintentional, can inject racism into the justice system and mandates courts to provide relief when bias affects a case.
A key section of the RJA states: “Implicit bias, although often unintentional and unconscious, may inject racism and unfairness into proceedings similar to intentional bias. The intent of the Legislature is not to punish this type of bias, but rather to remedy the harm to the defendant’s case and to the integrity of the judicial system.”
Bailey’s attorneys argued that the officer’s comments and misleading testimony amounted to a violation of the RJA, as they reinforced racial stereotypes that could unfairly influence a jury’s perception of a Black defendant.
During an evidentiary hearing, the defense presented expert testimony on race and the criminal legal system, showing how the officer’s word choices and assumptions mirrored long-standing racial biases in law enforcement.
“The cumulative effect of the officer’s racially-coded words and discriminatory language amounted to a violation of the Racial Justice Act,” said Deputy Public Defender Lilah Wolf, who successfully argued the motion in court.
The judge agreed, finding that implicit bias had influenced the officer’s conduct and ruled in favor of reducing certain felony convictions to misdemeanors—a direct remedy provided under the RJA.
For San Francisco’s Public Defender’s Office, the victory is a major step forward in addressing racial disparities in policing and prosecution.
“Implicit bias plays a huge role in our legal system—from police to prosecutors to judges—and has historically resulted in the over-policing, over-charging, and over-sentencing of people of color,” said Deputy Public Defender Diamond Ward, who led Bailey’s trial defense.
Public Defender Mano Raju, an outspoken advocate for racial justice, emphasized the broader implications of the case.
“We hope that this ruling stands as a testament to the power of the California Racial Justice Act, that we can win these motions and help challenge unjust convictions and sentences,” said Raju. “I commend our team of public defenders for being stalwart defenders of justice and holding the line to stop implicit bias from having undue influence over the lives of our clients.”
While public defenders have filed numerous RJA motions since the law took effect, few have resulted in evidentiary hearings, let alone favorable rulings. Bailey’s case marks the first time a San Francisco judge has issued a remedy under the RJA, a decision that could pave the way for more challenges to racial bias in criminal cases.
The successful motion in Bailey’s case demonstrates how the California Racial Justice Act can be used to challenge racial bias in real time, rather than solely relying on post-conviction appeals.
It also highlights the power of video evidence and expert testimony in exposing discrepancies between police narratives and actual events. If Bailey’s defense team had not challenged the officer’s claims, his conviction may have stood unquestioned, despite clear contradictions in the record.
This ruling is likely to have statewide implications as more public defenders and civil rights attorneys use the RJA to challenge racial bias in policing, jury selection, sentencing, and parole decisions.
“While our office has always challenged instances of more explicit racial animus toward our clients, the Racial Justice Act now empowers us to address this kind of insidious implicit bias that undercuts due process and perpetuates the unfair treatment of Black and Brown people in the criminal legal system,” said Wolf.
At a time when racial disparities remain deeply entrenched in California’s criminal legal system, this case signals a turning point in the fight for greater accountability, transparency, and fairness in policing and prosecution.
