Background graphic
At the Lectern

Even more supplemental briefing, this time on new Racial Justice Act legislation, further delays three death penalty opinions

October 25, 2025

Three death penalty appeals that raise significant issues under California’s Racial Justice Act (see here and here) and that were argued months ago, continue to have their decision due dates pushed back.  The latest delay came Wednesday when the Supreme Court ordered additional supplemental briefing, this time on brand new RJA legislation.

People v. Bankston was argued almost six months ago, People v. Chhuon and Pan was argued in late May,  and People v. Barrera was argued in early June.  Because of constitutional and statutory limits, it’s uncommon for a Supreme Court opinion to file more than 90 days after an argument.  But this week’s supplemental briefing order makes it possible that opinions in the three cases could come as late as February 26 of next year.

Back in June, the court ordered supplemental briefing on some significant RJA issues.  Because of extensions, that briefing is not due to be completed until the middle of next month.

Wednesday’s order asks the parties to now brief, “What is the effect, if any, of Assembly Bill No. 1071 (Stats. 2025, ch. 721) on the issues in this case?”

AB 1071 was signed by the Governor less than two weeks ago.  The Legislative Counsel’s digest says about the bill in part that it “authorize[s] the court to remedy a violation of [the RJA] with any other remedy not prohibited by another law.”  AB 1071 also includes extensive legislative findings, including, “Racial bias in criminal prosecutions, in all its forms or degrees, is never minor or harmless,” citing People v. Simmons (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 323.  The court declined a request to grant review on its own motion in Simmons (see here), where a 2-1 Second District, Division Six, opinion held “the state constitution does not limit the Legislature’s power to define a miscarriage of justice.”  Whether the Legislature has that power is a main topic of the initial supplemental briefing.

The court also on Wednesday directed a Court of Appeal to reconsider its opinion in a non-capital case “in light of the impact, if any, of [AB 1071].”  (See here.)

 

Put Our Proven Appellate Expertise to Work for You.

For over 60 years, we've preserved judgments, reversed errors, and reduced awards in some of California’s most high-profile appellate cases.

Explore our practices Explore Careers
Horvitz