Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Vague Allusion to George Floyd Killing Was Violation of RJA
Opinion Says Reversal of Former San Francisco 49er’s Rape Conviction Is Mandatory
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
DANA STUBBLEFIELD alleged rapist
|
|
|
Convictions of former San Francisco 49er Dana William Stubblefield for forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, and false imprisonment, with use of a firearm, must be reversed, the Sixth District Court of Appeal declared yesterday, based on the prosecutor’s vague allusion during closing argument to the George Floyd killing and an uncompleted sentence referring to the defendant’s race.
Under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (“RJA”), the harmless error doctrine cannot be applied, Presiding Justice Mary J. Greenwood said, explaining:
“The Legislature’s expressions of ‘zero tolerance’ for racial discrimination in the legal system are consistent with the statutory language mandating automatic remedies for RJA violations established on direct appeal.”
A jury, after a nine-month trial, found that Stubblefield in 2015 forced himself on an intellectually disabled woman who came to his home, applying for a post as a babysitter. Closing arguments began on July 21, 2020, eight weeks after Floyd, a Black man, was referring murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis during an arrest, sparking nationwide demonstrations.
Although the victim claimed that Stubblefield had brandished a gun, police had not searched the house for one. The prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Tim McInerny, explained to the jury that a search would have triggered a “a storm of controversy,” explaining:
“Can you imagine in Morgan Hill when they search an African-American—”
He was cut off by a defense lawyer’s objection.
Morgan Hill is a highly affluent city in Santa Clara County.
Greenwood’s Opinion
Greenwood wrote:
“Stubblefield argues the prosecution appealed to racial bias by identifying his race as the reason for a weakness in the prosecution’s case and tapping into a racially biased backlash against the protests. The Attorney General contends any violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
“We find the prosecution violated the Racial Justice Act as codified in part at Penal Code section 745. The prosecution explicitly asserted Stubblefield’s race was a factor in law enforcement’s decision not to search his house. The statement implied the house might have been searched and a gun found had Stubblefield not been Black, and that Stubblefield therefore gained an undeserved advantage at trial because he was a Black man. Second, the claim that a search would ‘open up a storm of controversy’ implicitly referenced the events that followed George Floyd’s then-recent killing, appealing to racially biased perceptions of those events and associating Stubblefield with them based on his race.”
Events relating to the George Floyd killing, Greenwood said, are so widely known that judicial notice may properly be taken of them.
No Meaningful Opposition
The Office of Attorney General, she noted, virtually concedes the issue, saying:
“A heading in the Attorney General’s brief summarily states that Stubblefield’s RJA claims have no merit, but as to the claim at issue here, the Attorney General’s brief does not support that position with any argument.”
The presiding justice pointed out that, under Penal Code §745(e)(2)(A), where an RJA violation occurred, “the court shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings….”
The case is People v. Stubblefield, H048598.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company