WOODLAND, Calif. — During a racial justice hearing in Yolo County Superior Court, a law professor testified that a prosecutor used dehumanizing and racially charged language while describing the events in a case involving the alleged gang-related killing of a man.
In the case, three men currently face charges for second-degree murder, criminal street gang activity and the use of firearms. The victim was allegedly killed in an act of gang violence over a word that was said.
Deputy Public Defender Sara Johnson told the court that the prosecutor used direct dehumanizing animal imagery when describing the case, presenting testimony from Professor Bowman, a clinical professor of law at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Bowman discussed the specific negative stereotypes associated with young Black men.
The prosecutor claimed the accused surrounded the victim “like a pack of wolves,” which Professor Bowman said carries a bias that treats the accused as less than human and has the effect of reducing empathy.
Bowman said the language has associations with savagery, violence, remorselessness, instinctiveness and danger, appealing to deeply rooted racial implicit stereotypes against Black and Latino men.
DPD Johnson added that the prosecutor said the accused “worked together and had the idea of keeping [the victim’s] attention engaged,” alluding to predatory hunting behavior. Johnson also mentioned the prosecutor’s use of the word “migrate” to refer to movement, claiming the term has an animal connotation similar to the action of a flock of birds.
DPD Johnson argued that there was a profound association with negative outcomes, which she said is never essential language for prosecutors to use when prosecuting a case.
DPD Johnson further highlighted the use of the N-word between witnesses and attorneys, stating it was used more than 100 times. Bowman noted 48 uses in the portion of the transcript she analyzed, highlighting what she described as excessive repetition of the word.
Bowman said the repeated usage was itself problematic, suggesting the statements could have been repeated without the slur, given its troubling historical and contemporary usage. She said the word carries a negative outgroup connotation.
DPD Johnson also claimed the lawyers in the trial used the “hard R,” or “-er version,” even though the witnesses did not. Bowman testified that the racial connotation was clearly recognized, saying the case was framed in a way that could produce an implicit bias effect on the listener.
Deputy District Attorney Stephanie Melinda Aiello responded by asking Bowman who decided which portions of the case she was to review, to which Bowman responded that the materials were selected by DPD Johnson.
The testimony remains unfinished, and the case is set to resume on a date that has not yet been determined.
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.
