California Appellate Court Decisions Referencing the Racial Justice Act (San Diego County)

In re McIntosh (2025)

Citation: In re McIntosh (2025) (Docket: D084379)

Robert Arthur McIntosh, a Black man, sought the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting a petition for writ of habeas corpus in superior court, raising claims under the California Racial Justice Act (RJA). He alleged that the San Diego District Attorney’s Office charged gang and firearm enhancements more frequently against Black individuals and imposed longer sentences on them compared to similarly situated individuals of other races, supporting his claims with statistical data.

The trial court denied his request for counsel, ruling that he had not made the prima facie showing required for an order to show cause (OSC). The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, held that the trial court had erred by conflating two different inquiries. The appellate court found that the RJA (Penal Code section 1473(e)) imposes a duty on trial courts to assess the adequacy of the factual allegations in a habeas petition to determine if an indigent petitioner is entitled to appointed counsel, and that this inquiry is independent of the prima facie showing required for an OSC. The court exercised its discretion to construe the petition as a petition for writ of mandate and issued a writ directing the trial court to conduct the required inquiry to determine if McIntosh is entitled to appointed counsel.

Jackson v. Superior Court (2025)

Citation: Jackson v. Superior Court (2025) (Docket: D084751M)

Elijah Jackson, a Black man, was charged with carrying a loaded firearm after police found a handgun during a search of the car he was driving. Jackson filed a motion under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020, arguing that the police stopped (ostensibly for illegally tinted windows) and searched his car due to racial bias. He supported this claim with statistical evidence showing racial disparities in traffic stops and searches by the San Diego Police Department (SDPD).

The superior court denied Jackson’s motion, stating he failed to establish a prima facie violation. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and found that Jackson had produced sufficient evidence—including statistical data and personal accounts of repeated stops by the same officers—to establish a substantial likelihood of implicit racial bias. The court concluded that Jackson met the prima facie standard for a violation of the Racial Justice Act. The Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate, vacating the superior court’s denial of Jackson’s motion and ordering an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the stop and search were influenced by implicit racial bias.