Amidst community protests of George Floyd’s murder, California legislators enacted the Racial Justice Act to protect people from old Jim Crow laws.

Two San Quentin Rehabilitation Center residents, Kevin Fuqua and Roy Brown, petitioned their sentencing courts under RJA in an effort to address racial injustice, according to Knock L.A. 

The courts denied the petitioners citing a lack of evidence.

Both Fuqua and Brown believed RJA would provide them with legal representation, since an attorney would have helped them ascertain evidence showing a disproportionate sentence based on race, noted Knock L.A.

Fuqua, incarcerated the past 38 years for first-degree murder, claimed the presiding judge made a racial comment during court proceedings.

“The court’s excuse was a common one for people incarcerated here. No discoverable facts were attached to the petition to determine whether a public defender appointment was necessary,” stated Knock L.A. 

Under RJA, the courts were not obligated to review juror bias, non-diverse juries, or police misconduct. Instead, RJA mandated courts to review overt acts of racial discrimination during court proceedings.

As historic as the law is, it has fallen short of delivering on its promise of significant racial justice. As instances of this shortfall grew, California lawmakers moved to fix the glaring issues flowing from RJA.

The second iteration of the Act, Assembly Bill 1071, improved access to information and remedies, at the same time requiring courts to appoint council. Petitioners will now be able to proceed with the “faith that justice does stand a chance of prevailing.”