Criminal procedure: discrimination.

As Assembly member Kalra advances this measure, the proposal ties California’s racial-bias protections in the criminal process to a broad set of procedural reforms designed to uncover and remedy race-based prejudice in charging, conviction, and sentencing. The core objective is to enhance access to information, provide counsel in postconviction contexts for indigent litigants, and extend racial-bias remedies to more kinds of cases, including youth adjudications and certain juvenile-to-adult transfers. The bill also signals a coordinated path with a companion measure that would shape when these changes take effect.

At the heart of the change is a clarified prohibition on seeking or imposing a conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, paired with a defined set of grounds that a defendant may prove by a preponderance of the evidence. These grounds include bias or animus by case actors (such as judges, prosecutors, or jurors), racially discriminatory language observed during proceedings, and disparities in charging or sentencing that correlate with race. The framework allows defendants to present evidence broadly, including statistics, expert testimony, and sworn witnesses, and contemplates the possible appointment of independent experts to aid the court in determining whether a violation occurred. Remedies are available both before and after judgment and may include mistrial, dismissal of certain charges or enhancements, vacatur of the conviction or sentence, or remand for new proceedings, with protections against foreclosing other remedies under state or federal law. The provisions also extend to juvenile adjudications and to cases involving transfers to adult court, and the death penalty is made ineligible where a racial-bias violation is found.

The bill expands habeas and post-judgment relief avenues by amending procedures to allow broader grounds for relief—such as newly discovered innocence evidence, false or prejudicial statements, and race-based violations tied to prior proceedings—and by detailing discovery rights, timelines, and evidentiary rules. It creates structured pathways for hearings, disclosure orders, and potential protective measures to shield privacy rights, while preserving the option to appeal adverse rulings. In addition, the measure specifies that post-conviction relief could be pursued after release or while still in custody, with related standards for timely filing, service upon law enforcement when officer conduct is involved, and the possibility of vacating convictions or altering judgments or sentences as warranted by the findings.

Implementation and policy context revolve around a careful sequencing with a companion measure, creating a conditional operative framework that would tie these amendments to the companion bill’s enactment and effective date. The proposed changes would be integrated with existing postconviction and habeas procedures, while expanding discovery, data aggregation for disparity analyses, and the scope of who may seek relief. The bill also foregrounds the practical needs of courts and prosecutors—such as managing broader discovery, potential retrials or resentencing, and the administrative requirements of new definitions and data-handling standards—without mandating new appropriations within the measure itself. The net effect would be to broaden procedural mechanisms for addressing race-based biases in the criminal system, while maintaining alignment with existing remedies and distinct protections in hate-crime prosecutions.