Court Rules Public Defenders May Decline Racial Justice Act Habeas Cases: What Accused Individuals Need to Know
A recent published decision from the California Fourth District Court of Appeal has clarified an important—and often confusing—issue for accused individuals seeking postconviction relief under the California Racial Justice Act (RJA): county public defenders cannot be forced to represent inmates in RJA habeas proceedings.
This ruling may significantly affect how RJA claims are handled across California, especially as more incarcerated individuals pursue relief based on racial bias in charging, trial, or sentencing.
Our experienced criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can guide you through the legal process. Call Wallin & Klarich today toll-free at (877) 466-5245 for your free consultation with one of our criminal defense attorneys near you.
The Case Behind the Decision
The case arose from the convictions of Taiwan Orran Reed, who was convicted in 2020 of pimping, pandering, human trafficking, and rape, and sentenced under California’s one-strike law to 21 years, 4 months plus 30 years to life.
In 2024, Reed filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under the Racial Justice Act, alleging that prosecutors and law enforcement witnesses used racially charged language at trial—specifically referring to him as a “gorilla pimp.” The trial court found the allegations plausible and issued an order to show cause, meaning the court believed the claims warranted further litigation.
When Reed’s privately retained attorney later withdrew, the trial court appointed the Riverside County Public Defender to represent him. The public defender declined, citing limited resources and the overwhelming volume of habeas petitions filed by incarcerated individuals.
The trial court disagreed and ordered the public defender to remain on the case. That decision was challenged—and ultimately overturned.
The Appellate Court’s Key Holding
In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that public defenders may decline court appointments in postconviction RJA habeas proceedings.
Justice Frank J. Menetrez explained that habeas proceedings are not part of the criminal trial itself. Once a conviction is final, an accused individual is no longer defending against criminal charges. Instead, they are initiating a separate legal proceeding to challenge their detention or sentence.
That distinction matters because California law treats representation differently depending on the stage of the case:
- Public defenders must defend indigent accused individuals during the trial phase.
- But in postconviction matters—such as habeas corpus and RJA petitions—public defenders may represent indigent individuals, meaning they retain discretion to decline.
As the court put it, a habeas petitioner is “prosecuting the writ,” not defending a criminal action.
Why This Ruling Matters to Accused Individuals
For incarcerated individuals pursuing RJA relief, this decision has real consequences:
- Do not assume the public defender will automatically handle your habeas case.
- Postconviction RJA claims often require appointed alternate counsel or private attorneys.
- Courts cannot shortcut the process by forcing public defenders to take cases outside their mandatory duties.
The decision also highlights the growing number of RJA filings statewide. According to testimony in the case, Riverside County alone oversees roughly 13,000 sentenced individuals, generating a steady stream of habeas petitions—sometimes multiple filings per day.
What the Court Did Not Decide
One concurring justice raised concerns that denying mandatory representation after an order to show cause could strain county resources and complicate access to counsel. However, even that justice agreed that the trial court’s order compelling the public defender could not stand as written.
The appellate court ultimately directed the trial court to:
- Vacate its order compelling the public defender’s representation, and
- Appoint alternate counsel to handle Reed’s RJA habeas proceedings.
RJA Habeas Cases Require Focused Legal Advocacy
Racial Justice Act claims are not routine filings. They often involve:
- Detailed review of trial transcripts and expert testimony
- Analysis of racially charged language and implicit bias
- Evidentiary hearings and appellate scrutiny
For accused individuals, this ruling reinforces an important reality: postconviction relief requires strategic, experienced legal representation, especially when constitutional rights and racial bias are at issue.
How Wallin & Klarich Can Help
At Wallin & Klarich, our experienced criminal defense attorneys understand the complexity of postconviction litigation, including Racial Justice Act habeas petitions. These cases demand a thorough understanding of constitutional law, statutory interpretation, and the evolving legal standards governing racial bias in California’s criminal justice system.
If you or a loved one believes racial discrimination played a role in a conviction or sentence, it is critical to speak with an attorney who knows how to navigate postconviction remedies and aggressively protect your rights.
Call Wallin & Klarich Today
We have decades of experience handling complex postconviction matters, including habeas corpus petitions and Racial Justice Act claims. We understand how courts evaluate allegations of racial bias, and we know how to hold the prosecution accountable when discriminatory language or conduct undermines a fair trial.
At Wallin & Klarich, we have offices all over Southern California: Irvine, Pasadena, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Torrance, and Anaheim. Additionally, our law firm can handle many types of cases statewide.
Discover how our team can assist you. Contact us today, toll-free at (877) 466-5245 for a free consultation with a skilled criminal defense attorney near you.
Email Us