Thursday, July 2, 2026
Page 3
C.A. Says Broad Statistics About Gun Filings May Be Enough to Trigger RJA Discovery
Opinion Says Showing That Black Parties Face Firearm Allegations More Than White Suspects May Be Sufficient ‘Plausible Foundation’ to Justify Requiring Prosecutors to Turn Over Data
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Five of the First District Court of Appeal has held that a defendant who filed a motion alleging racial bias after he was convicted of attempted robbery with a firearm based on statistics from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, purportedly showing that Black defendants faced gun allegations in Alameda County more often than White suspects, may be entitled to discovery of eight years of data from the local prosecutorial office.
The request was made under the Racial Justice Act of 2020 (“RJA”), codified at Penal Code §745, which provides a party may establish a violation by showing that he “was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races…who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated” and “the prosecution more frequently sought…convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendant’s race.”
Subdivision (d) specifies that a “petitioner may file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of subdivision (a) in the possession or control of the state” and “the court shall order the records to be released” upon a showing of “good cause.”
Good Cause
Presiding Justice Teri L. Jackson wrote Tuesday’s unpublished opinion, joined in by Justices Mark B. Simons and Danny Y. Chou, recognizing that the evidence provided by the defendant fell short of the proof required to show a violation of the act but saying that he met the threshold factual showing needed for a discovery order. She said:
“The People are correct, of course, that to establish an actual RJA violation, petitioner must prove he was charged with or convicted of a more serious offense than non-Black defendants who are ‘similarly situated’ and engaged ‘in similar conduct.’…However, we are only at the discovery stage….The RJA cannot serve its intended purpose if courts impede defendants from requesting and obtaining the very information that would, if discovered, establish a violation.”
However, she acknowledged that courts are directed to balance other factors such as whether the material is adequately described, reasonably available, or violative of third-party privacy rights, in making a final good-cause determination and remarked:
“On remand, the trial court shall engage in a discretionary weighing of the remaining…factors to determine whether there is good cause for discovery under section 745, subdivision (d).”
2018 Shooting
Seeking relief from his conviction under the RJA was David Cunningham, a Black man who was accused of shooting another party during a botched drug deal in 2018. On Aug. 11, 2021, the defendant pled no contest to attempted robbery and was sentenced to 13 years in prison, 10 of which are attributable to a firearm enhancement.
In July 2024, Cunningham filed a motion asserting violations of the RJA in his case based on allegations that California’s firearm enhancement law disproportionately impacts Black defendants. He then requested discovery under §745(d) from the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office in the form of eight years of information relating to the charging and sentencing of firearm enhancements.
Alameda Superior Court Judge Thomas E. Stevens dismissed the discovery motion for lack of jurisdiction on July 22, 2024, finding that “Section 745 does not appear to authorize standalone postconviction motions” and that a defendant must seek relief by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Cunningham appealed.
Habeas Process
Jackson acknowledged that, under the statutory scheme, the “petitioner is only authorized to bring an RJA claim by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus because he is incarcerated and his judgment is already final.” However, she pointed to the newly adopted Penal Code 1473(e)(2), effective as of Jan. 1, which expressly authorizes a petitioner to file a discovery motion under §745(d) “in preparation” for such a filing.
Saying that “we are exercising our discretion to treat this purported appeal as a petition for writ of mandate,” the jurist declared:
“[W]e direct the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate compelling the trial court to vacate its order and to conduct a new hearing to reconsider petitioner’s discovery motion in a manner consistent with this opinion.”
Plausible Factual Foundation
Citing the 2022 decision by the First District’s Div. Four in Young v. Superior Court, in which the court held that a defendant seeking discovery is required to advance a “plausible factual foundation” that an RJA violation might have occurred, the jurist noted:
“[P]etitioner offered statistical data drawn from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation demonstrating that, in 410 cases in Alameda County from 2016 to 2024 wherein a firearm use enhancement was alleged, 21 percent involved White defendants whereas 43 percent involved Black defendants. He also offered data demonstrating that, in California, Black defendants comprised approximately 64 percent of those convicted of a robbery crime with a firearm enhancement, while White defendants comprised approximately four percent of those convicted of the same. Finally, he offered data demonstrating that, in Alameda County, non-White defendants were 20 times more likely to be convicted of a firearm enhancement than White defendants.”
Noting that the statistical information “met the foundational requirement of presenting a plausible justification for discovery under section 745, subdivision (d),” she wrote:
“Petitioner offered specific facts from California and Alameda County data to support his request for discovery to investigate potential RJA violations. This offer included data relating to the specific crime for which he was charged and convicted: robbery with a firearm use enhancement. No further offer of proof is required at this stage.”
The case is Cunningham v. Superior Court (People), A171196.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company