Kowal Law Group Logo

The Racial Justice Act Is Unconstitutional

Tim Kowal     April 11, 2024

A divided panel in People v. Uriostegui (D2d6 Apr. 5, 2024 No. B325200) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, a residential burglary case, reversed a guilty verdict. Because of lack of evidence of guilt? No, the prosecution’s evidence was overwhelming. Instead, the majority reversed because, after the prosecution made a peremptory challenge to a Hispanic prospective juror, and after the defense objected that the challenge was based on implicit bias, the trial judge erred by overruling the objection.

But wait just a minute. The prosecution’s ruling was not actually biased. In fact, the majority went out of its way to note that it was not finding that the prosecutor was motivated by bias. And there was no suggestion that, had the challenged juror been on the jury, the result would have been different. To the contrary, as Presiding Justice Gilbert notes in dissent, the facts in the record “show overwhelming evidence of guilt.”

So why did the majority reverse? Because the Racial Justice Act, and specifically Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, requires reversal when a juror who is a member of a protected class is excused without express findings that the reasons for the excusal “bear on the prospective juror’s ability to be fair and impartial.” Lacking that express finding here, the majority concluded it was reversible error to deny the defendant’s objection.

The prosecution explained that it exercised its peremptory challenge because the juror was not currently working, had no military experience, had no children, seemed young and immature, easily swayed by others, and generally had a lack of life experience. The defense argued this was all a pretext, and that the challenge was motivated instead by the fact that the juror had what appeared to be a Spanish surname.

The majority reasoned that, to overrule the objection, the trial judge must make a finding that the prosecution’s asserted reasons for the challenge must bear on the juror’s “ability to be fair and impartial in the case.” (§ 231.7(f).) The trial court did not make this express finding, and that required per se reversal because it is “imperative that trial courts heed section 231.7’s new mandates to root out discriminatory uses of peremptory challenges.”

Dissenting, Presiding Justice Gilbert began by agreeing with the purpose of the Racial Justice Act. But he then explained that the trial judge did find that the prosecution’s challenge was not for an invalid reason. Instead, the majority was reversing because the trial court did not deploy “the talismanic phrase ‘I find by clear and convincing evidence the reasons of the prosecutor for the peremptory challenge bear on the prospective juror’s ability to be fair and impartial in this case.’” This, PJ Gilbert said, “is taking literalism into the realm of the absurd.”

The Racial Justice Act Is Unconstitutional

Besides, PJ Gilbert goes on, there is a “cogent argument raised by Justice Yegan in his dissent in [People v. Simmons (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 323—dissenting to PJ Gilbert’s majority opinion!] that the Racial Justice Act violations the doctrine of separation of powers.” Specifically, these two jurists refer to the fact that the California Constitution, article VI, § 13, require a showing of a “miscarriage of justice” before a judgment may be reversed. Absent a structural error—such as a showing of actual bias, not present here—the mere failure to make a finding, even a finding required by statute, cannot support reversal alone. (F.P. v. Monier (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1099 [failure to make required findings in a statement of decision does not support reversal absent a showing of prejudice].)

When Justice Yegan referred to a separation-of-powers violation, he was addressing the fact that the Legislature declared in the racial Justice Act that the use of racially discriminatory language in a criminal trial constitutes a miscarriage of justice. (Simmons, at p. 340.) But Justice Yegan reasoned that what constitutes a miscarriage of justice under the constitution must be independently determined by the judiciary—the question may not be usurped by another branch of government. Absent a judicial finding that a particular violation of the Racial Justice Act resulted in a miscarriage of justice—and none was made in either Simmons or Oriostegui—the judgment must be affirmed, even despite violations of the Act.

Quoting Marbury v. Madison, Justice Yegan ended his Simmons dissent thus: “The Legislature cannot dismantle California's separation of powers doctrine by dictating to the judiciary how the California Constitution should be construed.”

The dissents in both cases were correct. The Racial Justice Act is an unconstitutional separation of powers to the extent the legislature purports to dictate to the judiciary the content of the Constitutional.

I suspect the result will not advance the ends of the Racial Justice Act: instead of exercising genuine discretion and articulating thoughtful reasons—which may be picked apart as the defendant did here—trial judges may simply overrule objections by reciting what Presiding Justice Gilbert calls the “talismanic phrase.” As the dissent concludes, “It escapes me how this statute succeeds in what it seeks to prevent.”

The Attorney General did not disagree with the outcome in Simmons, and did not file a petition for review. But watch for a petition for review in this one.

Tim Kowal is an appellate specialist certified by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization. Tim helps trial attorneys and clients win their cases and avoid error on appeal. He co-hosts the Cal. Appellate Law Podcast at CALpodcast.com, and publishes summaries of cases and appellate tips for trial attorneys. Contact Tim at [email protected] or (949) 676-9989.
Get “Not To Be Published,” a weekly digest of these articles, delivered directly to your inbox!

"Counsel on the firing line in an actual trial must be prepared for surprises, including requests for amendments of pleading. They cannot ask that a judgment afterwards obtained be set aside merely because their equilibrium was slightly disturbed by an unexpected motion."

Posz v. Burchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 324, 334

"God made the angels to show Him splendor, … Man He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind."

— Sir Thomas More in Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons

"It may be that the court is thought to be excessively legalistic. I should be sorry to think that it is anything else."

— Hon. Sir Owen Dixon, Chief Justice of Australia

"A judge is a law student who grades his own papers."

— H.L. Mencken

"So far as the beginnings of law had theories, the first theory of liability was in terms of a duty to buy off the vengeance of him to whom an injury had been done whether by oneself or by something in one's power. The idea is put strikingly in the Anglo-Saxon legal proverb, 'Buy spear from side or bear it,' that is, buy off the feud or fight it out."

— Roscoe Pound, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”

— James Madison, Federalist 62

"Upon putting laws into writing, they became even harder to change than before, and a hundred legal fictions rose to reconcile them with reality."

— Will Durant

"At common law, barratry was 'the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up suits and quarrels' (4 Blackstone, Commentaries 134) and was punished as a misdemeanor."

Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."

— Plato (427-347 B.C.)

Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly.


"Moot points have to be settled somehow, once they get thrust upon us. If an assertion cannot be proved, then it must be settled some other way, and nearly all of these ways are unfair to somebody."

—T.H. White, The Once and Future King

Copyright © 2024 Kowal Law Group
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram