People v. Bankston
The California Supreme Court interpreted the state’s Racial Justice Act to incorporate harmless-error review, at least on appeal of judgments entered before the law took effect, and to not categorically bar prosecutors from re-seeking the death penalty following reversal. The court interpreted the law that way to avoid serious questions under clauses requiring a miscarriage of justice inquiry and restricting legislative amendment of voter initiatives, in this case an initiative regarding death eligibility. With respect to Mr. Bankston, the court agreed with the state attorney general that prosecutors’ remarks during sentencing, including analogizing the defendant, who is Black, to a “Bengal tiger,” were racially discriminatory in violation of the law and required reversal of his death judgment.
Related Commentary
State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in March
Issues on the dockets include mid-decade redistricting, ghost guns, a challenge to a DOJ request for voter data, gender-affirming care for minors, and SpaceX rocket launches.
Federalism and State Constitutional Rights in 2026
The killing of Renee Good by a federal immigration agent thrust into the spotlight questions about when and how states can hold federal officials accountable.