WOODLAND, Calif. — During continued proceedings Tuesday in a post-conviction hearing, the defense argued that language used during the original criminal trial included implicit racial bias in violation of the California Racial Justice Act.
The accused was charged with second-degree murder, use of a firearm and participation in a street gang.
The matter centered on whether the rhetoric and descriptive framing used by prosecutors during the criminal trial increased the likelihood that racial stereotypes could have influenced jurors’ perceptions and decision-making, even without direct references to race.
At issue was not the conviction itself, but the language used throughout the trial. This included metaphors, descriptors and the framing of the narrative, which the defense argued could have affected the fairness of the trial.
Professor Mary Bowman, an expert in rhetoric and implicit bias, testified for the defense. Bowman analyzed language used in portions of the trial and identified wording she argued “carried racially coded stereotypes.”
Phrases Bowman highlighted included “pack of wolves” and descriptors such as “hunting” and “migrating” when describing alleged gang violence.
During cross-examination, Deputy District Attorney Aiello challenged Bowman’s analysis, emphasizing that she did not review the entirety of the trial transcript.
The prosecution also argued that the language used during the trial described the alleged actions of the accused, not race.
Prosecutors further noted that the jury did not convict the accused on gang allegations, arguing that claims regarding gang-related framing in their language were irrelevant to the outcome of the conviction.
Bowman testified that implicit bias can infiltrate language without conscious awareness. She explained that metaphors and framing can activate stereotypes.
She referenced research on racialized narratives, including the term “superpredator,” which Bowman testified was used to racialize Black youth and portray them as gang members.
The prosecution countered that descriptive language used in closing arguments should not be framed as racially charged. Prosecutors maintained that their language had no bearing on the jury’s decision-making.
Judge Danielle P. Maguire allowed several of Bowman’s published works on rhetoric and implicit bias to be entered into evidence.
The court scheduled final arguments for May 28. A ruling is expected on whether the prosecution’s language during the original trial violated protections under the California Racial Justice Act.
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.
