Early attempt to invoke Racial Justice Act denied

New law seeks to empower challenges to convictions on claims that racial bias tainted fairness of court proceedings

An early attempt to invoke a new law designed to root out racism from court proceedings was met with a swift denial in a Santa Clara County courtroom, after a judge shot down a defense motion arguing that she demonstrated racial bias during a robbery trial.

The motion was the county’s first filing citing the California Racial Justice Act — authored by San Josebased state Assemblymember Ash

Kalra — that allows defendants to challenge convictions and sentences by showing that racial bias factored into a charging decision, the running of a trial, or the severity of a sentence.

The motion was sharply rejected by Judge Linda Clark on Monday, after Deputy Public Defender Karina Alvarez asserted at the sentencing for Isaiah Casson that Clark improperly denied the introduction of evidence showing her client’s accuser had used he N-word in past social-media posts.

That usage, Alvarez wrote, supported the defense’s contention that racial animus motivated the victim into embellishing his account, elevating a charge against Casson from a petty theft of marijuana to a robbery. Alvarez argued that Clark’s ruling violated the new law. Casson is Black; Clark is White.

Alvarez’s motion zeroed in on Clark’s Oct. 14, 2020 remarks explaining why she did not see the word usage as relevant, in which she said the victim “has at least two obviously African-American friends on Facebook. So I don’t believe the mere use of the term ‘ni***as’ suggests that he is somehow prejudiced, biased or in any other way has any ability to falsify because of Mr. Casson’s race, gender or any other part of his natural makeup.”

The motion included a brief report from Rita Cameron-Wedding, a professor of Women’s and Ethnic Studies at Sacramento State University who challenged Clark’s as

sessment.

Cameron-Wedding argued that “even a single utterance of this word is toxic and signifies the subordination of black people … whether it’s done in jest, humor or as a quote,” and criticized what she called Clark’s suggestion “that having black friends immunizes the alleged victim from internalizing antiblack biases.”

Clark denied Alvarez’s request that she recuse herself. From there, Deputy District Attorney Mai Tran Buell called the motion “outrageous” and reiterated broad concerns by prosecutors about the Racial Justice Act, centered on a lack of benchmarks for how to prove racial bias not only was present but significantly swayed trial proceedings.

“It’s not based upon any type of evidence that is credible,” Buell said. “It doesn’t include anything but a presentation of important parts of the court transcript taken out of context.”

But Alvarez argued that Clark’s ruling, and the way her motion was being heard Monday, was evidence of the matter being evaluated “through a racist lens, if not a lens filled and covered with implicit bias.”

Clark grew impatient at times and ultimately told Alvarez “you have failed to state or show any demonstration how any alleged implicit bias affected this court’s determinations or treatment of your client,” and that her ruling “was not based on any kind of bias, implicit or otherwise.”

Casson, an Oakland resident, had been convicted of robbery involving a May 12, 2020 encounter in San Jose with a marijuana delivery driver. Casson ordered marijuana and refused to pay, and the driver later told police that Casson threatened him by making the shape of a gun underneath his sweatshirt and then took the roughly $150 worth of pot.

Alvarez defended Casson by arguing that while he swiped the marijuana away without paying, the threat story was conjured up because Casson is Black.

In her sentencing Monday, Clark showed a stark shift in tone and was sympathetic to Casson’s troubled upbringing and his stints of sobriety while trying to adhere to rehabilitation programs.

“All of those things taken together with Mr. Casson’s limited successes tells this court he is not such a character that he does not have a prospect of turning things around,” Clark said.

Clark removed Casson’s prior strikes — based on two prior felony burglary convictions — to keep him from being subject to a possible life prison sentence under the state’s “three strikes law.” She sentenced him to a five-year prison term but suspended it on the condition that he closely adhere to court-ordered rehabilitation and four years of probation.

“I do believe you have potential, and so I want to give you what I believe also will be your last chance to decide what person you’re going to be,” Clark told Casson.

That leniency likely will keep the Racial Justice Act motion, at least involving Casson, from being appealed, to preserve a sentence that released Casson from jail. Alvarez credited Clark with treating and sentencing her client fairly.

The Racial Justice Act just went into effect this year, and for now only applies to new cases, though Kalra has already proposed a bill to make it apply retroactively. Alvarez said that what happened Monday could be a harbinger of what will likely be numerous courtroom encounters across the state that will ultimately define how the law actually works.

“I really do respect (Clark), but this goes to show how difficult this is, checking biases in ourselves and others, people we respect, and people we look up to. But it’s just so vital,” she said after the sentencing. “As we have these come up, we have to go through some discomfort confronting ourselves and others, it’s going to be difficult, but it will be necessary to address systemic racism.”