Page 1
Linking Defendant to High-Crime, Black Area Can Violate Racial Justice Act—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal yesterday conditionally reversed a second-degree murder conviction based on the prosecutor repeatedly posing questions to the defendant concerning links to East Palo Alto which, during the time he lived there, was predominantly African American and known for violence, with the justices ordering that the trial court hold a hearing to determine if there was a violation of the California Racial Justice Act of 2020.
Defendant Jermaine Randy Howard made a primary showing of racial animus on the part of the prosecutor, Justice Allison M. Danner of the Sixth District said in the opinion, saying that Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Robert B. Hawk was therefore obliged, under Penal Code §745, to hold a hearing.
Hawk sentenced Howard to nine years in prison.
“If the trial court denies the defendant relief on remand, the judgment will be reinstated,” Danner instructed. “If the trial court grants the defendant relief on remand, the trial court shall conduct any further proceedings as necessary.”
Requirements of Act
Under Sec. 745(a)(1) of the Racial Justice Act (“RJA”), there is a violation where “an attorney in the case…exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin.”
Sec. 745 (c) provides that if a “defendant makes a prima facie showing of a violation” of the RJA, “the trial court shall hold a hearing.” Subdivision (h)(2) says that a prima facie showing is made if “the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation” took place.
“Substantial likelihood’ subd. (h)(2) sets forth, “requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not.”
Howard’s Motion
In his motion in the trial court, Howard, an African American, provided the web address of “History of East Palo Alto” which was then posted on a County of San Mateo website, asserting:
“East Palo Alto has a reputation for being unsafe, violent, gang-related, and other negative connotations. In 1992, East Palo Alto was dubbed the ‘murder capital of the world. East Palo Alto, or EPA, was also historically predominately African American.”
Howard testified that he had resided “[b]etween Menlo Park and San Jose—whole life.” This dialogue took place:
“Q. Well here’s what I’m getting at: You have more of a connection to East Palo Alto than the Palo Alto connection that you’re talking about right now; correct?
“A. Yeah. But, I mean, Palo Alto is Palo Alto.”
The prosecution argued that it received information that Howard had links to East Palo Alto, that he was trying to avoid an association with it for sake of the image he wanted to create of being a businessman, and that his attempt to evade the fact of his ties to the area was relevant to his credibility.
Hawk agreed.
Danner’s Opinion
Danner wrote:
“Even if the trial court did not abuse its discretion at the hearing on the RJA motion in deciding that Howard’s connection to East Palo Alto was relevant ‘in terms of impeaching Mr. Howard’ in light of Howard’s direct testimony, the relevance of Howard’s connection to East Palo Alto specifically was marginal in this case.”
She declared:
“That the record shows a permissible purpose for the questions asked and fails to show the prosecutor harbored express racial bias or animus against Howard does not necessarily mean that the prosecutor’s conduct was free of implicit or implied bias.”
The jurist said that in light of “East Palo Alto’s history of violence and its historical racial makeup, the link to the website, and the general reputation of East Palo Alto in the 1990’s” and “East Palo Alto’s historical reputation and demographics, and the recognized connection between a person’s place of residence, racial group, and negative stereotypes,” Howard made a prima facie showing.
Open Questions
She specified:
“We emphasize that, in concluding Howard made a prima facie showing of an RJA violation under section 745 subdivision (c), we do not decide that Howard has established that the prosecutor’s questions violated the Act….We decide only that the trial court erred in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on Howard’s motion. We express no opinion on whether Howard’s RJA motion should be granted or denied following further proceedings. We also express no opinion on the remedy that should be imposed if the trial court were to find that Howard has proved a violation of the Act.”
The case is People v. Howard, H050156.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company