Confronting Bias in Yolo County: RJA Violation Declared Due to Prosecutor Depicting Black Man with Animal Imagery

Editor's Note: Participatory Defense organizer, Cecilia Chavez, writes about Maurice Cook's Racial Justice Act hearing in Yolo County, California based on a Prosecutor depicting him with animal imagery.

---

Mr. Cook’s family and his supporters sat through multiple hearings where the court heard and decided on his various Racial Justice Act claims in Yolo County. About a year and half ago, when the RJA became retroactive, Mr. Cook, a 45-year-old Black man incarcerated in Solano Prison, filed his multiple RJA claims where he pointed out how his case had been tainted with racial bias. The claims ranged from animal imagery, us v. them language, comparison to terrorists, use of the “n” word, and a few others. Procedural hurdles delayed the hearings but ultimately a violation was found that involved the term “wolfpack” used to describe Cook and his brother’s behavior during the incident. We are now heading towards a remedy hearing. 

Mr. Cook's win was not only extremely meaningful for him, but has significance  across California in the struggle for racial justice. Mr. Cook was convicted to 40 years to life for second degree murder with gun enhancements for a self-defense act that was painted to the jury as a gang murder for "disrespect”. He was originally facing a LWOP sentence exposure. He was convicted back in 2003 on the heels of 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, which is important context given the words used by the prosecution to convict Mr. Cooks. His case was also influenced by the “super predator” rhetoric used in the media in the early 2000’s. He not only experienced bias in charging and conviction but also racial animus throughout the trial with words such as "wolfpack", “migrate”, "us v. normal people", "we, civilians", "terrorist", and the use of a racial slur 48 times during closing arguments, to name a few. 

In his RJA hearing, after several delays, the court ultimately found the use of the word “wolf pack” as the only RJA violation in his claim. This win is significant because just two weeks prior to this decision, the California Supreme Court ruled on four cases regarding the RJA (Bankston, Barrera, Chhuon/Pan, and Demolle) on how the law should be applied. For those of us who believe in racial justice, these cases were a setback. The rulings gave ambiguity to what could be considered discriminatory language and what implicit bias means and how these could have impacted jurors’ decision making. 

The judge in Mr. Cook’s case referenced these recent Supreme Court cases during his ruling, claiming that certain terms used by the prosecutors were not forms of racial bias because they were not directly used to describe or reference Mr. Cook. So for one of the claims, the term “migrate” was not considered a violation by the judge because it was only used once and it was used to describe the movement of a gang versus Mr. Cook himself.  The judge’s position is that because some of the terms were not directly an “exhibition of bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national” then there was not a violation. 

What was most shocking was the explanation why he denied the racial slur claim. The “n” word had been used a total of 48 times in both “er” and “a” ending by both the prosecutor and Cook's previous defense attorneys during closing arguments according to the testimony of the expert. Mr. Cook says the word was used over a hundred times throughout the duration of the trial. Because both of the attorneys were quoting rap lyrics or other witnesses in the case, and not directly referring to Cook with the racial slur, the judge ruled against this claim. But given the historical context, the rural county in which it was tried, and the defendant’s race; it seems reasonable that the unnecessary use of the slur painted a certain picture in the jury’s mind.

Mr. Cook is now in procedural limbo. He had originally come back to court on an AB 600 petition; which is a request for the judge to use their discretion to resentence someone. His sentence was recalled prior to his RJA filing which now gave him the status of his “judgement not being entered”. Under Bankston, if his case was “entered”, then the prosecutor can try to prove that the violation was a “harmless error” and it did not affect the decision in the case. Meaning that, now, even with the violation being found, the prosecutor’s office can argue that the violation did not impact the jury’s decision making, and therefore there would be no need for a remedy. It's a two-step process that we have to wait for in the upcoming months. First, the court has to hear whether Mr. Cook’s case is “finaled” or not, then if it rules it is “finaled” whether the “harmless error” standard applies. 

This case has definitely been a nail-biting experience since the beginning. As we are witnessing history and law being made, Mr. Cook is also paving the way for others in his same position.