The Supreme Court yesterday denied review in People v. Wagstaff, but Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans recorded votes to grant. They also issued a separate statement, written by Justice Evans.
On appeal, the Attorney General conceded that the sentencing superior court judge violated California’s Racial Justice Act (see here and here) by saying to the Black defendant — who had been convicted of felony false imprisonment and related offenses arising out of a domestic violence incident — “it’s easy to bust into people’s homes and take property because they’re not there or because you’re a strong young buck and you can do these things at-will.” He also declined to assert that the violation was forfeited by defense counsel’s failure to object.
But the Sixth District Court of Appeal, in a published opinion, rejected the concession and found forfeiture despite being “aware of racist historical usages and cultural meanings associated with the language challenged.” It also found unavailing the defendant’s claim that the failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
Justice Evans’s statement (which is appended to the Court of Appeal’s opinion) explains at length why she does “not believe this is an appropriate case to apply the forfeiture doctrine, especially in light of the importance of the RJA.” It claims the defendant is entitled to resentencing before a different judge.
Finding that “the record, considered in context, is sufficient to infer that the trial court exhibited implicit racial bias in violation of the RJA,” Justice Evans wrote, “the term ‘young buck’ is deeply racialized. With origins in slavery, the phrase evokes negative stereotypes including associations with heightened criminality and violence, and implies that Black men are innately capable of committing crimes. The term and its troubling connotations are well known.”
