Page 1
Judge’s Rulings Adverse to Black Defendant Did Not Breach Racial Justice Act—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A man convicted of second degree murder has failed in his effort to persuade the Court of Appeal for this district that he’s entitled to a reversal on the ground that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark S. Arnold violated the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 by such means as portraying him “as a Black criminal” and his victim as a “law abiding white female” who was “totally respectable” when she was actually a prostitute.
The act was violated, under Penal Code §745)a)(2), where a judge or other specified participants in a trial “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.”
Writing for Div. One, Justice Helen I. Bendix said in an opinion filed Thursday that “the rulings challenged by defendant were ordinary evidentiary rulings based on relevance and do not demonstrate implicit racial bias under the Racial Justice Act’s preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”
Appellant Aquil Qadir Lawson on Aug, 23, 2021, came on his scooter to the passenger side of an automobile that was parked in front of a marijuana dispensary in the 800 block of Los Angeles Street, shooting twice at the head of fashion designer Madison Rose Weiss, 28, who was seated in the driver’s seat, talking on her cellphone. A short time after the shooting, Lawson posted on Instagram videos of himself dancing and boasting of a killing.
Arnold ruled that rap lyrics directly related to the homicide—as opposed to Lawson’s “general feelings about women and violence”—were admissible, as was evidence of Lawson’s participation in certain fraudulent schemes. He barred evidence of Weiss’s involvement in the manufacturing of fake COVID-19 vaccination cards and her status as a prostitute, and disallowed references to the death of a close friend of the defendant which Lawson blamed on Weiss.
The judge’s alleged Racial Justice Act violations, Lawson contended on appeal, undermined his self-defense claim.
Bendix wrote: “The only language defendant identifies as racially discriminatory is the trial court’s statement during sentencing that defendant was a thief, fraudster, liar, and coward. Defendant argues that because he lacked a prior criminal record, the trial court’s language demonstrates that ‘[u]nintentional implicit bias impacted the trial court’s rulings.’ To the extent defendant is suggesting the terms were unjustified, we note by his own admission he engaged in unemployment and pay loan fraud. Defendant does not explain how the terms used by the court to describe him are ‘racially charged or racially coded.’ ”
The justice said the question “is whether it is more likely than not that these rulings were motivated by racial bias or animus, whether explicit or implicit, as opposed to some other reason,” declaring:
“We conclude the answer is no. It is at least as likely, if not more so, that the trial court made the rulings based on legitimate assessments of relevance.”
Recent Legislation
Lawson asserted that Arnold admitted rap lyrics without adhering to the dictates of Evidence Code §352.2, added by 2022 legislation. It requires “a sufficiently robust inquiry” into whether of “artists’ creative expression” has the effect of introducing “bias or prejudice into the proceedings,” noting:
“In particular, a substantial body of research shows a significant risk of unfair prejudice when rap lyrics are introduced into evidence.”
Bendix found §352.2 to be inapplicable, explaining:
“Although the Legislature has limited the admissibility of forms of creative expression in criminal proceedings…, this does not extend to statements about the crime itself.”
Jurist’s Comment
Bendix said that an alleged violation of the Racial Justice Act may be raised for the first time on appeal, as Lawson was doing, but commented:
“It is important to recognize the value of bringing a Racial Justice Act claim in the trial court in the first instance.… Asking a trial court to consider whether its proposed ruling reflects the court’s own implicit biases, or could have the unintended consequence of playing to jurors’ implicit biases, serves an important purpose in raising the court’s consciousness of the biases the Racial Justice Act is intended to eliminate.”
The case is People v. Lawson, 2025 S.O.S. 353.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company