Yes. A defendant or postjudgment petitioner who alleges a California Racial Justice Act violation may ask the court for relevant records in the state’s possession or control, but the request must identify the types of records sought and show good cause. That discovery request is separate from proving the RJA claim, and it does not create an automatic right to every record or establish that discrimination occurred. (Penal Code § 745(d))
Build a focused request from the case facts
Start by identifying the decision or conduct that raises the concern: who acted, what was said or decided, where and when it happened, and how it relates to race, ethnicity, or national origin. If the concern involves different treatment, identify the comparison group and why the other people or cases may be similarly situated. Preserve the charging papers, transcript passages, rulings, reports, and dates that help counsel describe the issue accurately.
Then ask for record categories that could help evaluate that specific issue. A request might identify the relevant decisionmaker or agency, the type of records sought, the time period, and how those records relate to the alleged conduct. Section 745(d) addresses relevant evidence held or controlled by the state and requires good cause. A general demand for “all bias records,” or a statistic standing alone, does not replace a case-specific explanation. (Penal Code § 745(d), (h))
The court must also consider privacy and privilege. It may address protected material through redaction or a protective order; disclosure is barred when those protections cannot adequately protect the interest at stake. A Racial Justice Act request is not a Pitchess motion for police personnel records, and the two procedures have different standards. (Penal Code § 745(d))
Keep discovery and proof of a claim separate
The request for records is one step in a larger statutory process. For a trial-court claim, the Act identifies several ways a violation may arise. A prima facie showing is a threshold for a hearing; the ultimate violation is determined under a separate preponderance standard, and the statute does not require proof of intentional discrimination. The requested records may help evaluate or support a claim, but an order granting discovery is not a finding that a violation occurred. (Penal Code § 745(a)–(d))
Timing and procedure depend on the case posture. A motion during trial must be made as soon as practicable; the court may treat a late motion as waived. After judgment, the available route depends on the judgment, custody status, and statutory coverage. The Act’s 2026 retroactivity provision reaches felony judgments and specified juvenile dispositions; it does not make every final misdemeanor judgment eligible. A person still in criminal custody may have a habeas route under Penal Code § 1473(e); a person no longer in criminal custody may have a motion route under § 1473.7(a)(3), which has an undue-delay requirement. Discovery may be sought before or during those proceedings under the statutes’ conditions. (Penal Code § 745(b), (j)–(k); § 1473(e); § 1473.7(a)(3), (e); § 1473; § 1473.7)
For a represented claim based partly on an officer’s conduct under § 745(a)(1) or (a)(2), counsel must serve the employing agency. If judgment was entered before January 1, 2021, a petitioner who proves an (a)(1) or (a)(2) violation receives the statutory remedy unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation did not contribute to the judgment. The remedy also depends on the violation and procedural stage, so counsel should check the current text and record before selecting a filing or requesting relief. (Penal Code § 745(c)(3), (e), (k))
For help reviewing the procedural record in a California criminal case, visit the Law Offices of David S. Chesley’s investigation and pretrial page or call (800) 755-5174.