I remember watching my brother's trial when I was around 14 years old. I wanted to stand up and say something as the DA made their arguments about my brother and his friends. I know the DA was wrong, his description of him, his life, who he was as a person. Things being said was an extreme reach from the prosecutor in an effort to influence the jury’s perspective of my brother in a negative way. But I didn't speak up, and at the time I wouldn’t have a way to address the court anyhow.
That was over 15 years ago. Since then, now as an adult, I still sit in courtrooms, but to support other families going through what my family once did. The difference is today, due to the Racial Justice Act (RJA), community can have a say to counter how prosecutors try define our family members, our neighborhoods, our lives.
The Racial Justice Act is a new law that allows people to challenge a charge, conviction, or sentence due to racial bias. Part of the way defense attorneys argue RJA motions is by putting forward experts - traditionally academics or professors - to explain how an action or statement by an officer, or prosecutor, or judge was racist. But who better than the community ourselves to explain the racism used against us?
For a long time, prosecutors have hired “experts” to try to make the case that the person facing charges did the crime, or why they should suffer a longer sentence. It is often a former law enforcement officer getting paid extra to testify about communities they have only known as those they have spent a career trying to incarcerate. They will claim to be an expert on a culture they were never a part of, areas they never grew up or lived in, lifestyles they never have experienced but claim to be an authoritative voice because they watched a few videos or read some books about the community. However, even the training and videos are created by people who also are not from the culture, with the same agenda to prosecute and convict their target. The issue with this process is that it gives someone so much influence on the future of another person’s life and a completely unfair advantage to the prosecution because in essence its whatever they say goes. Therefore, a juror, who may have never had an experience with the judicial system or a similar upbringing as the person facing charges, will take what the DA says or submits as true, including what their expert witnesses say. For example, an elderly white person (often the common juror) won't know about Black or Brown neighborhoods, culture, music, slang, fashion etc. So when they hear the DA criminalizing the defendant’s culture in a way that has become common practice because it leads to a conviction, the juror will believe the prosecution's narrative. Especially if it's being backed by the “Peoples” witness, someone labeled as a so-called expert, in a court where you are sworn to tell the truth.
However, now with the Racial Justice Act the opportunity to speak up is available for all cases including cases that are post sentencing. Defense attorneys can call on community members and have them submit their opinion on a case to challenge bias against a person’s race, national origin, ethnicity. An RJA claim can be made by pointing out a racist action or statement made from the arrest, investigation, court hearings, and anyone from judges, attorneys, police officers, jurors, experts or defense attorneys as well.
What if this needed expert isn't far away or out of reach, but actually could be in our own backyards? We believe the people most qualified to be experts of communities, cultures or neighborhoods are the same people that live them. It could be a neighbor, family member, school teacher, formerly incarcerated individual, etc. This is to say that there is no limit to who can or should be a community expert, but what should be emphasized is that if someone is being called to be an expert, their actual experience should have more authority than a cop who watched a bunch of videos or read a book about that community.
Having sat in on a number of RJA hearings, I have seen plenty of examples of where community knowledge could be used to support an RJA claim.
For instance, in one case a police officer pulled someone over for a traffic stop, then due to racial bias pursued other unrelated criminal charges. In this case, the cop assumed the person was a drug dealer because of his race and the music he listened to. In another case, the haircut someone had made the police assume the person was a gang member without any further evidence.
Both of these examples, a familiarity and knowledge of the culture would be the most effective way of winning a RJA violation. So a DJ or community member can explain the music that was understood by police as a connection to drug dealing, is actually by a local artist, or even a fresh artist hot on the radio that may have thousands or millions who listen to the same music. All those listeners who are not drug dealing, so therefore that argument is not valid. Or a local barber can explain how a hairstyle is common amongst a certain age group in a community, and should not be automatically equated to gang membership.
Another example of were community experts would be important is in challenging the racist language court actors use. A prosecutor or a judge, for example, can say something in the course of a case that can be the basis for a Racial Justice Act claim. Let’s say the District Attorney is using derogatory terms to describe a person to dehumanize him in front of the jury, in order to bring out bias in a juror or jury. The language does not have to be an explicit derogatory term. A community member can be brought forward by the defense attorney to explain the harm and damage of that stereotype, and how it has been used against a people even outside of court.
If the Racial Justice Act can live up to its potential, it will not only be about case outcomes. It will be how community voice, particularly those who have suffered from the racism of the system, can be heard. In the future, our hope is that it will become common practice to call on the community to become more involved in the decisions being placed on their own beloved community members who are being accused.
