OAKLAND, Calif. — Curtis Lee Ervin, a former California death row prisoner who spent nearly 39 years incarcerated before his murder conviction was overturned because of racial discrimination in jury selection, is suing Alameda County for $290 million, alleging that senior prosecutors knowingly permitted unconstitutional practices for decades.
The federal lawsuit, originally filed May 27, 2026, alleges that the misconduct was “not done in isolation by rogue prosecutors” but reflected longstanding practices within the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office.
According to the complaint, prosecutors “set out to rig the juries” through a “deeply rooted unwritten policy and custom—especially in capital cases—to keep Jewish and Black people from serving on juries.”
Ervin was convicted in 1991 of the 1986 murder-for-hire killing of Carlene McDonald and sentenced to death.
The complaint alleges that Deputy District Attorney James Anderson struck nine of 11 Black prospective jurors, including every Black woman who reached the jury box. The resulting jury included one Black juror and one Black alternate.
In 2024, the California Attorney General’s Office conceded that Ervin’s constitutional rights had been violated during jury selection. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria subsequently vacated his conviction.
Ervin later pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter, robbery and kidnapping, receiving a combined 27-year sentence. He was released Aug. 25, 2025, after nearly 39 years in custody, including approximately 33 years on death row.
His attorneys argue that he remained incarcerated for more than 25 years beyond the time he otherwise would have served.
The complaint alleges that Ervin endured prolonged isolation, inadequate medical care, poor nutrition and psychological distress associated with living under a death sentence.
Ervin, who was 34 when arrested in 1986, was nearly 73 when released.
His lawsuit seeks at least $40 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages, along with attorney fees and other relief.
The complaint alleges that Anderson, who led the district attorney’s capital prosecution unit from 1991 to 2004, established and oversaw discriminatory jury selection practices.
It attributes to Anderson the statement that excluding Black and Jewish jurors was “not a racist thing, but just common sense.”
The lawsuit also describes a June 1992 prosecutors’ conference in San Diego, where Deputy District Attorney John R. “Jack” Quatman allegedly instructed attendees to “strike Jewish jurors from capital cases.”
According to the complaint, Anderson and Kenneth Burr, the capital unit’s second-in-command, attended the conference, and Anderson defended Quatman’s remarks.
The lawsuit alleges that Quatman was never disciplined.
Ervin’s attorneys contend that the district attorney’s office deliberately avoided documenting discriminatory practices, instead communicating them orally.
The complaint alleges that the office “had a policy of not having policies” and “avoided accountability by not putting unethical instructions in writing.”
The lawsuit further describes a 2004 internal meeting, disclosed in 2024, during which senior prosecutors allegedly failed to investigate allegations of discriminatory jury selection.
Instead, the complaint alleges, officials attempted to remove potentially incriminating materials from prosecution files and discredit Quatman, who had raised concerns about misconduct.
Deputy District Attorney Morris Jacobson allegedly instructed others “to find dirt on Quatman.”
Ervin’s attorneys argue that these actions demonstrate institutional indifference to constitutional violations rather than misconduct by individual prosecutors acting independently.
The allegations concern Batson v. Kentucky, the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision prohibiting prosecutors from excluding prospective jurors because of race.
The broader investigation into Alameda County’s capital prosecutions included approximately 62,000 pages of jury selection records and a review of 34 death penalty cases.
The complaint states that five cases prosecuted by Anderson have resulted in overturned convictions or resentencing.
Ervin is among several former death row prisoners whose cases were affected by discriminatory jury selection practices, including Ernest Dykes, Maurice Boyette and Mark Schmeck.
Dykes, who was released in April 2025, has also filed a civil lawsuit against Alameda County alleging similar constitutional violations.
Former Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price pursued resentencing in several cases following revelations of discriminatory jury selection.
Ervin’s civil case, Ervin v. County of Alameda, No. 4:26-cv-04996, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Court records show that an amended complaint was filed Sept. 12, followed by additional docket activity in October. The contents of the amended complaint have not been independently reviewed for this article.
The lawsuit seeks to establish Alameda County’s liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits civil claims for constitutional violations committed under color of state law.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
