The Common Racism of the Special Circumstance: Mr. William’s Fight Against Racial Bias and Life Without the Possibility of Parole

Editor's Note: De-Bug organizers, Yolanda and Cynthia, joined Pillars of the Community Participatory Defense Hub in San Diego in support of Anthony Williams and his family. Anthony had a Racial Justice Act (RJA) evidentiary hearing challenging the racial disparities of Special Circumstance and Life Without the Possibility of Parole sentences. Below is Yolanda and Cynthia's court reporting from the 3 day RJA hearing.

---

Illo by Adrian Avila

The Common Racism of the Special Circumstance:

Mr. William’s Fight Against Racial Bias and Life Without the Possibility of Parole

By Yolanda Gomez and Cynthia Dalcourt

In February, De-Bug went down to San Diego, California to join the Pillars of the

Community Participatory Defense Hub in support of Anthony Williams and his wife

Jessica in attending a three-day Racial Justice Act (RJA) evidentiary hearing. Anthony’s

hearing was the kind that most people never see, but where the issue of how race

quietly shapes prosecution in this country can be exposed through the RJA. Prior to

RJA, there was no clear way to bring in data evidence that showed racial disparities and

challenges the reasoning for those decisions.

In that way, Anthony’s fight for freedom and justice was representative of many people’s

struggles across California. Namely, the core of the issue for Anthony’s RJA was that

racial bias was used in the DA’s decision to place a “special circumstance”

enhancement on him, and how San Diego does not have, nor ever had, a criteria for the

decision to impose that enhancement. That means that racial bias could heavily

influence or dictate who has been given a special circumstance enhancement. To be

given a special circumstance enhancement is to be given a sentence of Life Without the

Possibility of Parole.

Anthony was arrested and accused of murder in connection with a shooting that

allegedly involved discharging a firearm from a vehicle. The DA chose to charge the

case under penal code 190.2(a)(21) labeling it a special circumstance that automatically

exposed him to life without the possibility of parole.

Anthony’s defense team started the hearing with three expert witnesses. Each expert

focused on a different layer of how racial bias operates, systemically, statistically, and

legally. After each day in court, we debriefed. Here’s what unfolded.

Day One: Implicit Bias in Prosecutorial Discretion

The defense opened with Professor Justin Levinson, an implicit bias expert. His

testimony laid the groundwork for how racial stereotypes influence policing and

prosecutorial decisions. Professor Levinson started by defining “bias” as it relates to the

Racial Justice Act. 

He began with “explicit bias” first because he said it would then be easier to understand

than “implicit bias.” He explained that explicit bias is recognized. It leaves no room for

doubt. The bias part is an unfair prejudice for or against a person, group or idea which

prevents objective judgment. This bias results in unfair circumstances. Implicit bias on

the other hand cannot be recognized immediately. It is unconscious attitudes,

prejudices, and stereotypes. Implicit bias influences behaviors and decisions without

conscious awareness.

He indicated that these biases can be built over life times, and that everyone has

implicit bias. It effects how people feel about things, and that it is ultimately stereotypes

and attitudes. Stereotypes are a form of implicit bias. He stated that the judges too,

being a part of the justice system, also apply their implicit bias.

Key to Anthony’s case is how implicit bias could impact prosecutors as well, in their

charging decisions. Since prosecutors are not immune to implicit bias, then the issue is

that there are still no clear guidelines for how prosecutors decide when to file special

circumstances. Without clear standards, prosecutors have full discretion in deciding who

to charge with a special circumstance. And when those decisions are based on

personal judgement, the implicit biases the expert described can influence those

choices, whether anyone realized it or not.

Day 2: Showing the Racism Through Data

The next expert Anthony’s attorney brought up was Dr.Baumgartner - a Professor of

Political Science at the University of North Carolina. He is an expert in statistical

analysis in criminal justice outcomes. He explained using the data from 647 homicides

during the 2017 - 2022 era in San Diego county on how statistical analysis was

performed thus creating his report. He opined that implicit bias played a crucial part in

Anthony being charged with special circumstance; shooting out of a car. There are 22

subcategories under penal code 190.2 to be charged with a special circumstance and

shooting out of a vehicle is one of those subcategories.

Special circumstances are not applied equally to white defendants and defendants of

color. In this case, statistical analysis overwhelmingly establishes the fact that special

circumstances are disproportionately applied based on the defendant's race.

Sitting in the courtroom, hearing his analysis was not a revelation nor a surprise to us.

It’s what we know because we work with the families who these special circumstances

are given. But I felt relief and an internal joy knowing that the truth can and will be

revealed. 

Day 3: The Harshest Punishments Fueled by Racial Bias

On the third day of the hearings, Professor Catherine Grosso took the stand. She is a

law professor and expert on capital punishment and racial disparities in sentencing. She

began by explaining important case history. She said in Furman v. Georgia (1972) the

US Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was being applied in an arbitrary and

discriminatory way by violating the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and

unusual punishment. The ruling halted executions across the country and required

states to narrow who could be eligible for the harshest penalties.

In response, California studied how homicide cases were being charged and

prosecuted. This effort became known as the Baldus study which examined 23,500

cases involving first degree murder, second degree murder, and voluntary

manslaughter.

Professor Grasso helped publish the 1990 study and testified about how the research

was conducted. She explained that the work was supervised by attorneys based on

official court records and grounded in legal analysis.

After establishing the history, she also emphasized a key issue: there are still no formal

guidelines for when prosecutors file special circumstances. And without clear standards

those decisions are left to prosecutorial discretion, meaning personal judgement

determines who is charged with the most severe penalties. This is how Anthony

Williams ended up with a sentence of Life Without the Possibility of Parole.

What was on full display in Anthony’s Racial Justice Act hearing is that implicit bias in

the charging realm and the statistical analysis proves that the law is not being applied

equitably across all races. Infact implicit and explicit features have been a feature of

systemic racism across the justice system. Anthony Williams is living the reality of what

these studies and testimonies expose. His fight is not just about his own freedom but

about challenging a system where the harshest punishments are driven by discretion

rather than clear criteria.