Racial Justice Act

1. a judge, attorney, law enforcement officer, expert witness, or juror in the case “exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin”;
2. racially discriminatory language about the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin was used in the criminal legal process, “or [a judge, attorney, law enforcement officer, expert witness, or juror] otherwise exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant … whether or not purposeful”;
3. the defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races “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”; or
4. when 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 . . . in the county where the sentence was imposed.”

Under the RJA, if a court finds a violation they are required to impose a remedy specific to the violation from a set list of remedies:

If a judgment has been entered and the court finds the conviction was “sought or obtained in violation of” the RJA, the court “shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent” with the RJA.

Originally, the RJA only applied to judgements rendered after January 1, 2021. However, AB 256 in 2022 amended the law to apply to cases decided prior to 2021.