LOS ANGELES, CA – The California Supreme Court has affirmed the death penalty in a 5-2 vote defeating claims under the California Racial Justice Act (RJA) in People v Wilson, according to a blog posted this week by the appellate law firm of Horvitz and Levy LLP.
The blog states, “The Supreme Court today affirms the death sentence in People v. Wilson for the 2000 murder or attempted murder of three taxi drivers in Los Angeles and San Bernardino. It’s a 5-2 vote with the disagreement about whether the appeal should even be decided now or whether it should be stayed and the case remanded to the superior court for adjudication of claims under the California Racial Justice Act.”
The blog explains, “The RJA prohibits convictions and sentences sought or imposed ‘on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin.’ (Pen. Code section 745.) The prohibited bias can be by almost anyone involved in a criminal case — the judge, an attorney, a law enforcement officer, an expert witness, or a juror.”
In addition, “An RJA violation requires vacation of a conviction or sentence, depending on the type of violation, and makes the defendant ineligible for the death penalty,” the blog states.
The blog notes, “The defendant is seeking RJA relief based on allegations, as described in the court’s opinion, that (1) during penalty phase deliberations one of the jurors referred to mitigating evidence of abuse and neglect in Wilson’s background as ‘cultural’ and argued ‘many children in Black families were raised under similar conditions and did not go on to commit murder’ and that (2) there are significant racial disparities in both charging and sentencing in San Bernardino, his county of conviction.”
The blog includes the court’s opinion by Justice Leondra Kruger which states that “(accused) seeks to raise a plausible RJA claim,” but denies his stay-and-remand motion. It says he can “simultaneously pursue relief through a direct appeal and relief in the superior court through a petition for writ of habeas corpus.”
The CA Supreme Court opinion emphasizes “an RJA stay and remand is neither categorically unavailable nor does the RJA automatically authorize a stay and remand in all pending criminal appeals in which colorable RJA claims may be raised on evidence that has not yet been developed.”
Justice Kelli Evans, adds the blog, noted, “She claims good cause for a stay and remand is established simply by setting “forth nonfrivolous RJA claims that require further factual development.”
Justice Evans added, the “majority supplants the Legislature’s demand to swiftly rid the criminal justice system of racism with a novel and unnecessary RJA-specific habeas path that, as the Legislature was well aware, is riddled with delay because of the difficulty of appointing habeas counsel and processing capital habeas claims,” states the blog.
The blog closes, “Moreover, despite the court’s detailed discussion of the RJA today, its opinion deals only with the stay-and-remand procedure and, even as to that, it identifies various issues that are left unresolved.”
