By Taylor Johnson
ALAMEDA COUNTY, Calif. — The Oaklandside reported Oct. 15, 2025, that a judge has ruled Alameda County District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson’s decision to withdraw a resentencing motion was not politically motivated, despite defense attorneys’ claims that the move represents a retreat from efforts to confront prosecutorial misconduct in the county’s death penalty cases.
When Pamela Price was sworn in as Alameda County district attorney in 2023, she promised a “reckoning” with the criminal legal system’s injustices, including police and prosecutorial misconduct. According to the Oaklandside, she “brought a new philosophy to the DA’s office, focusing on rehabilitation instead of punishment for youth and reducing the use of prosecutorial tools like enhancements.”
Price’s approach came into sharp focus in 2024 when a federal judge overturned the death sentence of Curtis Ervin, who had been tried in 1991, finding Alameda County prosecutors engaged in misconduct.
In 1995, another man, Ernest Dykes, was resentenced and freed in 2024 after evidence surfaced of further prosecutorial misconduct.
In a ruling on Dykes’ case, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria wrote that there was “strong evidence” Alameda County prosecutors had committed Batson violations — excluding jurors based on race, gender or ethnicity in violation of the 14th Amendment. According to the Oaklandside, prosecutors were found to have automatically excluded Jewish and Black jurors in death penalty cases, assuming they were less likely to support capital punishment.
Chhabria directed Price to review all of the county’s death penalty convictions for “strong evidence” of bias. Price created a resentencing unit to reexamine capital case files, mostly from the 1980s and 1990s. The Oaklandside reported that Price’s team “turned up more disturbing jury selection notes” and filed dozens of resentencing motions — an effort that defense attorneys said targeted 29 of the 34 death penalty sentences still active in Alameda County.
After Price’s recall in 2024, many of those cases became political flashpoints.
The most prominent are the resentencing cases of Miguel Sifuentes and Grayland Winbush, both moving through the courts. Price’s motions relied on Chhabria’s order, the 1986 Batson v. Kentucky decision, and California’s 2020 Racial Justice Act, which aims to eliminate racial disparities in the criminal legal system. The Act recognized that people of color have long faced systemic bias and are disproportionately charged with serious crimes and sentenced to death.
The law also acknowledged that incarceration risk declines sharply after age 40 and that lengthy sentences do not deter crime, according to the Oaklandside. It empowered district attorneys to seek resentencing for people subjected to racial bias by police, prosecutors, or courts.
In 2024, a superior court judge granted several of Price’s requests, freeing a few individuals who had already served new sentence terms and opening parole opportunities for others.
When the Alameda County Board of Supervisors appointed Jones Dickson to replace Price in January, at least 11 resentencing petitions were still pending. The Oaklandside noted that more than a third of those were filed under Price.
A former superior court judge and longtime deputy district attorney, Jones Dickson brought what the Oaklandside described as “a different philosophy … more focused on victims and their rights.” She told reporters in May she had no specific plans for the conviction reviews but soon ended contracts with several attorneys working on the cases and disbanded Price’s resentencing team. Deputies she selected later filed motions to withdraw many pending resentencing petitions.
“The reaction has been swift,” the Oaklandside reported. “Several attorneys have filed court briefs claiming the new DA is motivated more by what she views as a political mandate to be tough on crime than by the facts of each case — and that she has abandoned the effort to address disparities in sentencing.”
Attorneys for the incarcerated individuals argued the reversals are an attempt to conceal further evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.
Jones Dickson’s office defended its actions, claiming Price’s resentencing campaign was rushed and that many petitioners were not rehabilitated. According to the Oaklandside, the new DA argued that victims’ families had not been properly notified, justifying a change in course.
In September, Superior Court Judge Armando Pastran granted Jones Dickson’s request to withdraw a resentencing motion for San Quentin prisoner Miguel Sifuentes. Pastran dismissed Sifuentes’ core claim — that racial bias had tainted jury selection in Alameda County death penalty cases during his trial era.
Pastran acknowledged, however, that the allegations were “deeply troubling and should be addressed.”
Sifuentes’ attorney, Brian Pomerantz, told the Oaklandside he was “stunned” by the ruling, saying, “After everything we have seen and learned about the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office’s 30-plus years of targeting Black, Jewish, and gay and lesbian potential jurors, I was stunned to see someone question if it happened.”
He added, “There is a mountain of internal prosecution documents showing that it happened for decades, and the court had dozens of examples before it.”
Price’s administration had turned over evidence of prosecutorial misconduct to the courts, triggering a broader review of all county death penalty cases.
Since her recall, Price’s resentencing motion remains in limbo.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
