WOODLAND, CA – Judge Tom M. Dyer ruled here in a Yolo County Superior Court hearing Thursday there was prima facie evidence of racial bias in a 2016 sentencing, siding with Deputy Public Defender Sarah Johnson, who argued her African American client received a harsher sentence because of implicit racial bias.
“The RJA expands a defendant’s ability to gather evidence of racial bias and allows for the reversal or modification of a conviction or sentence even without the racial bias being shown to have altered the trial outcome, noted the Stanford Center for Racial Justice.
“The RJA expands a defendant’s ability to gather evidence of racial bias and allows for the reversal or modification of a conviction or sentence even without the racial bias being shown to have altered the trial outcome.” – Stanford Center for Racial Justice
The accused was convicted in 2016 with a felony with oral copulation, lewd and lascivious acts, contact or communication with a minor under 14 years old, with enhancements for prior prison and repeat offender.
The question in this case is not whether the accused is guilty but rather whether or not he received a fair sentencing, DPD Johnson charged.
“Disparities in data show implicit bias” based on data received in the past six years related to racial bias in sentencing. This violates the Racial Justice Act, which imposes that “race plays no rule at all… (and) not to punish anyone for bias,” Johnson said.
The comments made during the accused’s trial were that the accused was a “sexual predator” and “having no sexual boundaries,” which invokes stereotypes without using direct racial language, explained DPD Johnson.
The United States’ history of slavery and historically portraying black men as being sexually uncontrollable and violent does make these statements racially coded, noted DPD Johnson.
DPD Johnson added this case is “very different” in relation to other cases and urged Judge Dyer to “set it (our bias) aside, consider social science” for racial discrimination, noting the original prosecutor referred “nine times during closing argument” to the accused as a predator.
Deputy District Attorney Stephanie Zeitlin argued in opposition, stating the predator terminology “was relevant” based on the accused’s history.
During the trial, the prosecution also brought up a relationship the accused had with a consenting adult and made a reference to his mother concerning sexual boundaries.
But, DPD Johnson countered, “Intent does not matter… it was comparing him to an animal,” even if this bias was unintentional or unconscious.
Comparing data from 2014-2019, DPD Johnson pulled numbers and said “implicit bias leads to disparities,” noting the data show when comparing the facts and severity of cases and revealing how similar they were to one another, they had drastically different sentencing depending on the color of the accused.
DDA Zeitlin stated the “statistics were provided by stipulation rather than good cause,” and the prosecutor’s comments were a “race-neutral reference,” adding, “multiple sex offenses shows a pattern” and the accused committed acts “against a 14-year-old girl, that is predatory,” and “bare statistical analysis…we need more.”
Judge Dyer believed the case did fit the requirements under the Racial Justice Act of “prima facie” and it proved more than a mere possibility of racial bias
Judge Dyer set a follow-up hearing for May 29, to consider additional evidence before determining whether the sentencing will be formally vacated or modified under the Racial Justice Act.
