WOODLAND, CA – A Yolo County judge ruled Friday that a 50-year-old mother accused of misdemeanor hit-and-run presented sufficient evidence to support a racial discrimination claim under California’s Racial Justice Act (RJA), allowing the claim to proceed. The court’s ruling was based on a prima facie standard, meaning there is enough evidence to warrant further review, though no final determination has been made.
The RJA prohibits bias or discrimination in charging, conviction, and sentencing based on a person’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, according to the Office of the State Public Defender.
The accused, a mother with no prior criminal history, is charged with a misdemeanor hit-and-run after allegedly striking an 11-year-old pedestrian while driving her children to school and leaving the scene.
Deputy Public Defender Jailene Gutierrez previously sought judicial diversion, which would have allowed the accused to avoid formal prosecution. In a prior Vanguard article, DPD Gutierrez emphasized that the accused plays a critical role in her family and community and that diversion would help preserve her future employment prospects and family stability.
Judge Daniel M. Wolk denied the motion for diversion.
Following the denial, DPD Gutierrez alleged that Deputy District Attorney Ashley Harvey’s arguments against diversion violated the Racial Justice Act. Judge Wolk summarized three main points raised by the defense during Friday’s hearing.
First, DPD Gutierrez argued that DDA Harvey exhibited bias by referencing the accused’s immigration status, invoking the harmful “forever foreigner” stereotype.
Second, DPD Gutierrez contended that the prosecution used subtle but clear language to depict the accused and her family as “outsiders” undeserving of opportunities such as preserving employment.
Third, DPD Gutierrez asserted that DDA Harvey improperly personalized the case by referring to her own past experience of being hit by a vehicle, an incident previously reported by the Vanguard.
While Judge Wolk recognized the prosecution’s counterarguments, he ultimately found that the defense met its burden of proof for the first two points. However, he was not persuaded by the third argument, stating, “The personalization of the matter by the prosecutor…does not raise concerns from a racial animus perspective.”
A follow-up hearing is scheduled for July 31, 2025.
