20 March 2026 :
February 9, 2026 - California. Franklin Lynch’s sentence overturned due to racial discrimination
After 32 years on death row, his original death sentence was reduced to Life Without Parole in 2024
Lynch, who il Black, is now 70.
In a sweeping rebuke of racially discriminatory practices, the California Superior Court of Alameda County on Feb. 9 vacated Franklin Lynch’s death sentence and conviction, finding violations of the state’s Racial Justice Act and ordering a new trial.
The ruling concluded that Assistant District Attorney James Anderson engaged in racially biased conduct during Lynch’s trial, with the court determining the actions violated California’s Racial Justice Act (CRJA).
The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) reports that Lynch’s attorneys argued ADA Anderson’s “racial bias pervaded Lynch’s trial.”
The petition highlighted ADA Anderson’s use of discriminatory language in violation of the CRJA and racially motivated jury selection practices in violation of the precedent set by Batson v. Kentucky.
Alameda County’s District Attorney’s Office has reportedly been engaged in a long history of racial prejudice.
In 2024, the case of Ernest Dykes was resentenced due to similar misconduct uncovered by California prosecutors.
This opened the floodgates, and by 2025, 34 capital cases were under review, with 18 resulting in resentencings.
“For decades, capital defense practitioners litigating Alameda County cases have argued that attorneys representing the People had a pattern and practice of racially discriminatory jury selection practices, particularly during …1979 – 2008,” states the Alameda County District Attorney motion filed in Dykes’ case.
From 1991 to 2004, ADA Anderson led the office’s “Death Team” and is no stranger to claims of racial prejudice.
The former prosecutor has a documented history of racial and religious discrimination, including a 2005 New York Times report that ADA Anderson said excluding Black and Jewish jurors was “just common sense” in response to his jury selection notes.
According to the DPIC, that sentiment was reflected during jury selection in Lynch’s case.
ADA Anderson’s notes reportedly show a “systematic ranking of Black prospective jurors,” in which Black prospective jurors were placed “significantly lower.”
He also marked those prospective jurors with handwritten “B”s and red dots, a pattern not seen with non-Black prospective jurors — a practice referred to as “priming.”
Coined by researcher Mary Bowman, priming presents information with the goal of “triggering associations with other ideas.”
The DPIC notes that priming can “activate” racial bias.
Lynch’s claim also alleges that during voir dire of Black prospective jurors, ADA Anderson used “peremptory strikes to remove four prospective jurors.”
Of those removed, 3 were Black women, a group the DPIC emphasizes is “especially likely” to be excluded in capital jury service.
These practices violate the U.S. Supreme Court precedent set by Batson v. Kentucky, which held that “the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors.”
A Black juror who served on Lynch’s case reported feeling “racially pressured” to change her vote.
She originally believed there was insufficient evidence to convict Lynch, but due to “palpable” pressure, she switched her vote “to align with the rest of the jury, resulting in Mr. Lynch’s conviction.”
ADA Anderson also used derogatory language in reference to Lynch during the trial, calling him a “human reptile” in his closing statement.
The DPIC reported that Alameda County District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson, in conceding the CRJA violation, stated that the state was “unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of racially discriminatory language at [his] trial did not contribute to the judgment against him.”
Her predecessor, Pamela Price, reportedly reached a similar conclusion in another case involving ADA Anderson’s conduct, stating that “his pervasive use of ‘racist imagery and stereotyping’ had ‘undermined the integrity’ of that conviction as well.”
He was granted relief on Feb. 4 when DA Jones Dickson conceded his claim, and she has called for a new trial, though a date has not yet been set.
https://davisvanguard.org/2026/03/racial-bias-death-penalty-california/
