The California Racial Justice Act (RJA)

The California Racial Justice Act fundamentally changed how courts evaluate racial bias in criminal cases. Codified at Penal Code §745, the RJA provides a direct statutory remedy when race, ethnicity, or national origin plays any role in charging decisions, plea bargaining, convictions, or sentencing.

The RJA does not require proof of intentional discrimination. It focuses on outcomes and patterns, not motives. That shift alone has altered how cases are litigated from the charging stage through post-conviction review.

The Governing Statute

  • Penal Code §745 — California Racial Justice Act of 2020

    Enacted by Assembly Bill 2542 (effective January 1, 2021) and expanded by Assembly Bill 256 (effective January 1, 2023).

Secure online intake form

What the Racial Justice Act Does

Penal Code §745 prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction or sentence based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. A violation may be shown if any of the following occurred:

- Racially biased language or conduct by:

  • Prosecutors
  • Law enforcement
  • Judges
  • Expert witnesses

- Disparate charging or sentencing outcomes compared to similarly situated individuals of different races

- Use of race-based stereotypes to justify:

  • Guilt
  • Dangerousness
  • Credibility
  • Punishment

- Statistical evidence showing racial disparities at the county, prosecutorial office, or judge level

Intent is not required. Proof by a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient.

Historical Background

Pre-RJA Reality

Before the RJA, defendants challenging racial bias faced nearly insurmountable hurdles:

  • They were required to prove intentional discrimination (basically impossible)
  • Claims were often dismissed as speculative
  • Statistical disparities were rarely admissible

As a practical matter, race-based claims almost never succeeded.

AB 2542 — The Breakthrough

In 2020, the Legislature passed AB 2542 creating Penal Code §745.

Key shifts:

  • Eliminated intent requirement
  • Allowed use of comparative and statistical evidence
  • Created affirmative remedies, not just findings

AB 256 — Expansion and Retroactivity

AB 256 expanded the RJA to:

  • Post-conviction proceedings (this has become the most common and useful avenue for RJA relief)
  • Older, final convictions (subject to procedural rules)
  • Cases where judgment was entered before the RJA existed

This transformed the RJA from a forward-looking reform into a powerful post-conviction tool.

How RJA Claims Are Raised

RJA claims can be raised:

  • Pre-trial (challenging charging decisions)
  • During trial
  • At sentencing
  • Post-conviction (including resentencing or vacature)

Courts must hold an evidentiary hearing if the defendant makes a prima facie showing.

Evidence Commonly Used in RJA Motions

  • Prosecutorial charging data
  • Sentencing statistics
  • Plea offer comparisons
  • Law enforcement reports and language
  • Expert testimony on racial disparity
  • Comparative case analysis within the same county or courthouse

This is data-driven litigation, not rhetoric.

Remedies Under Penal Code §745

If a violation is found, the court must impose a remedy tailored to eliminate the bias. Possible remedies include:

  • Dismissal of charges or enhancements
  • Vacating convictions
  • Resentencing
  • Modification of charges
  • Exclusion of tainted evidence

The statute mandates meaningful relief, not symbolic findings.

Impact on Modern Criminal Defense Practice

The RJA has changed defense strategy in concrete ways:

  • Charging decisions are now something we can litigate for ethical disparities
  • Plea disparities are discoverable and contestable
  • Prosecutorial discretion is no longer insulated from review
  • Statistical analysis has become a core defense tool
  • Bias issues are raised early, not relegated to appeals

In some cases, the RJA becomes the central issue, eclipsing traditional suppression or evidentiary motions.

Common Case Types Where RJA Issues Arise

  • Gang-allegation cases
  • Firearm prosecutions
  • Drug sales cases
  • Strike priors and enhancements
  • Life-term and indeterminate sentencing cases
  • Cases with disparate plea offers among co-defendants

Bottom Line

The California Racial Justice Act represents a structural shift in criminal litigation. It recognizes that bias can operate through patterns and outcomes, not just overt intent—and it gives courts the authority to correct it.

But the RJA is not self-executing. It requires:

  • Careful data analysis
  • Early procedural positioning
  • Strategic litigation decisions

Handled correctly, it can materially alter the trajectory of a case or benefit the nature of a case’s resolution.

Next Step

If you or a family member is facing criminal charges in California and you want a defense review focused on whether racial bias affected charging, plea offers, trial strategy, or sentencing under Penal Code §745, you can send your information to me here:

Secure Online Intake Form