FRESNO, Calif. — After nearly 50 years of being incarcerated, last week a Fresno County Superior Court judge granted Douglas Stankewitz’s request for discovery under the California Racial Justice Act, ruling that the longtime death penalty case has met the statute’s relatively low threshold for obtaining evidence that could support claims of racial bias.
The ruling marks a game-changing development in the decades-long legal battle involving Stankewitz, a Native American man who was originally sentenced to death in Fresno County before being resentenced to life without the possibility of parole in 2019.
At a hearing before Judge Alvin M. Harrell, III, prosecutors argued that the defense had failed to establish sufficient evidence of racial disparities affecting Native Americans in Fresno County’s charging and sentencing practices.
Attorneys for Stankewitz countered that the California Racial Justice Act requires only a plausible factual basis suggesting that racial discrimination could have occurred, not proof that it actually did occur.
Deputy District Attorney Jamie Kalebjian told the court that the defense had not established a meaningful disparity warranting discovery.
“What was provided in the declaration, the People’s position is still it is not enough to speak to a disparity,” Kalebjian said. “Specifically, we’re talking about a difference of a 1.16 rate of disparity, I don’t believe that that is enough to find good cause to order discovery in this case.”
Kalebjian argued that defense claims relied too heavily on broader statistics involving people of color generally rather than Native Americans specifically.
“I just don’t think that they’ve raised a significant enough disparity in alleging that American Indians were disproportionately represented among LWOP and death penalty cases,” she said. “I think that defense goes through in their motion several times conflating more generally people of color versus American Indians.”
The prosecution also dismissed defense references to a Fresno County District Attorney’s Office press release in an unrelated case, arguing that it had no bearing on whether racial bias may have affected Stankewitz’s prosecution.
“That press release is irrelevant to the claims here,” Kalebjian told the court.
Defense attorney Curtis Briggs responded that prosecutors were improperly attempting to litigate the merits of a potential Racial Justice Act claim before the discovery phase had even begun.
“I think that Ms. Smith is falling into a trap many of us who dealt with the Racial Justice Act and tried to sort it out, figure it out, have fallen into, including judges, and that is getting to weigh the merits before we get to the proper phase,” Briggs argued. “So today I only have to show a plausible justification that it could have happened.”
Briggs emphasized that the defense was not yet required to prove racial discrimination.
“What we’re saying, based on the limited information we do have, is it is plausible, it could have happened,” he said.
He further argued that courts evaluating discovery requests under the Racial Justice Act should not weigh disputed facts at the preliminary stage.
“We should not be weighing any contested facts,” Briggs said. “We should not be entering into those arguments in either the first phase, which is where we are at today, the prima facia, but by all means, those are all legitimate arguments and discussions to have in the third phase.”
After hearing argument, Judge Harrell announced that he would grant the request.
“After careful review and consideration of the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the requested discovery, this Court is satisfied that defendant has established the requisite good cause pursuant to Penal Code Section 745 for this Court to grant the requested discovery,” Harrell said.
The judge explained that the California Racial Justice Act’s discovery standard is intentionally broad and designed to allow defendants access to evidence that may help establish claims of racial discrimination.
“Good cause equates to a plausible factual foundation based on specific facts that a violation of the Racial Justice Act could have occurred in the case,” Harrell said, citing appellate precedent interpreting the statute.
Harrell stressed that discovery requests under the law face a relatively low threshold.
“I think we all can agree that that language tells us that this is a fairly low bar to gain access to the requested discovery,” the judge said.
He further noted that the standard “does not require case specific facts, nor does it require weighing of the evidence.”
The court also referenced legislative intent behind recent amendments to the Racial Justice Act.
“This relatively low bar is consistent with the preamble to AB 1071, which clearly states the legislature also intends that individuals must be afforded access to a broad range of relevant discovery to develop and support their potential RJA claims,” Harrell said.
In explaining his ruling, Harrell outlined several factors advanced by the defense that he concluded were sufficient to satisfy the discovery standard.
According to the judge, the defense had presented evidence that Stankewitz is Native American and that the victim in the underlying homicide case was white. The court also noted allegations that prosecutors excluded the only Native American prospective juror during Stankewitz’s second trial.
Harrell further pointed to evidence submitted by the defense regarding historical discrimination against Indigenous people nationally, within California and within Fresno County. The court specifically referenced defense submissions asserting that the Ku Klux Klan was active in Fresno County during the 1970s and 1980s and that a Fresno County Sheriff’s Department employee held a leadership position within the organization during that period.
The judge also cited defense allegations that Native Americans in Fresno County were incarcerated at significantly higher rates than white residents.
Additionally, Harrell referenced a defense argument involving a Fresno County District Attorney’s Office press release in another case that described a location using the term “Squaw Valley,” a name that has since been changed to Yokuts Valley because of concerns that the former name was derogatory toward Native women.
The discovery dispute arises from a sweeping defense motion seeking decades of prosecutorial data and records. Among the materials sought are records relating to murder prosecutions, special-circumstance charging decisions, death penalty cases, life-without-parole sentences, jury selection materials from Stankewitz’s 1983 retrial, training materials, internal sentencing policies and records that could reveal evidence of racial bias.
Defense attorneys have argued that the requested information is necessary to conduct statistical analyses and evaluate whether Native Americans were treated differently than similarly situated defendants of other racial backgrounds. The defense has specifically requested information concerning charging decisions, death penalty practices, sentencing outcomes and records relating to jury selection.
The defense motion contends that repeated public-records requests for similar information were denied or yielded incomplete results, leaving formal court-ordered discovery as the only viable avenue for obtaining the data.
Stankewitz’s attorneys have also argued that no notes from jury selection during his 1983 retrial have been produced despite repeated requests. They contend that those materials could be relevant because they allege prosecutors improperly questioned and removed the only Native American prospective juror.
The ruling does not determine whether racial discrimination actually occurred in Stankewitz’s case. Instead, it allows the defense to obtain evidence that could be used to support a future claim under the California Racial Justice Act.
The statute, enacted in 2020 and expanded in subsequent years, prohibits criminal convictions and sentences obtained through racial bias and provides defendants with broad discovery rights intended to uncover evidence of discrimination in charging, sentencing, jury selection and other aspects of criminal proceedings.
Judge Harrell’s ruling means the case will now move into the discovery phase, where prosecutors and defense attorneys are expected to litigate the scope of records that must be produced and whether any information may be withheld or redacted. The ultimate merits of Stankewitz’s Racial Justice Act claims remain unresolved.
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.
