A memo dated October 20th, 2022, by Joseph Iniguez, Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gasc?n’s chief of staff, is advertising for applicants to fill an unstated number of deputy district attorney positions for a new department dedicated to appeals by convicted individuals claiming their case was adversely affected by racial prejudice.
The memo, sent to all current Los Angeles County deputy district attorneys, reads in part:
The District Attorney’s Office is establishing the Racial Justice Act Section (RJAS) in the HABLIT Unit of the Writs & Appeals Division to handle the considerable volume of petitions for habeas relief expected under the recently expanded Racial Justice Act (RJA).1 The RJAS is currently accepting applications for Deputy District Attorneys (DDAs) in Grades II, III or IV.
On September 29, 2022, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 256 into law, significantly broadening the breadth and retroactive effect of the RJA, which was originally enacted in 2020. As amended, the RJA demands that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a violation did not contribute to the judgment in cases in which an individual convicted of a criminal offense demonstrates that, intentionally or unintentionally, a judge, an attorney, a law enforcement officer, or an expert witness used racially charged or coded language or otherwise exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin. Beginning January 1, 2023, in staggered categories of cases, individuals will also be permitted to petition trial courts to vacate judgments or reduce criminal charges – without limitation as to the date of conviction – in cases in which it is demonstrated through statistical data or evidence, or through testimony, that persons of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or natural origin were charged with more serious crimes or sentenced more severely than others who were similarly situated.
Let’s break this down.
The law states:
745. (a) The state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. A violation is established if the defendant proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, any of the following:
The judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin.
During the defendant’s trial, in court and during the proceedings, the judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror, used racially discriminatory language about the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful. This paragraph does not apply if the person speaking is relating language used by another that is relevant to the case or if the person speaking is giving a racially neutral and unbiased physical description of the suspect.
The defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the evidence establishes that the prosecution more frequently sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the convictions were sought or obtained.
(A) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people that share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin than on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in the county where the sentence was imposed.
(B) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for the same offense on defendants in cases with victims of one race, ethnicity, or national origin than in cases with victims of other races, ethnicities, or national origins, in the county where the sentence was imposed.
You can see the danger in this. Justice is supposed to be blind, with no prejudice for or against the accused or aggrieved based on any factors immaterial to the truth. On this, there can be no rational disagreement. The problem comes when a law such as this, with its alleged intent of reinforcing justice’s colorblind essence, raises racial bias as a consideration factor for the accused to a higher level than any given criminal case’s facts. It is no wonder the hyper-leftist Gasc?n and his lackeys have seized upon the newly refreshed law to free even more convicted criminals.
It is arguable that Gasc?n and company are overstating the law’s reach as a basis for overturning convictions. The law does not demand a conviction’s automatic voidance should racial bias be determined to have affected a trial. That said, given choosing between obeying the law — any law — and virtue-signaling … you know the drill.
Maybe the Recall Gasc?n people can try it again and get it right.