California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Bankston is that penalty phase proceedings in capital cases that are marked by errors under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)) require reversal of the death judgment, under circumstances where both prosecution and defense agree such errors occurred.

Appeal from judgment of death in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Defendant Appellant was Anthony George Bankston — the defendant convicted of multiple murders who represented himself at trial with advisory counsel.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecuting party seeking the death penalty for multiple murder charges.

The suit sounded in criminal prosecution for capital murder. [No cross-claims applicable.]

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were two separate gang-related shooting incidents in 1991 where Bankston, a Blood gang member, shot and killed Benson Jones (a Crip member) and Jesus Sanchez (in rival gang territory), with additional charges for attempted murder of Benjamin Jones and assault with a firearm on Linda Jones. Witnesses identified Bankston as the shooter in both incidents, and he was found in possession of weapons matching ballistics evidence.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court entered a judgment of death after jury verdicts finding Bankston guilty of first degree murder charges at two separate guilt phase trials, finding true a multiple-murder special circumstance, and imposing death at the penalty phase, ruling that the convictions and special circumstances warranted capital punishment.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether errors under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 during the penalty phase required reversal of the death judgment. 2. Whether Bankston's self-representation was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. 3. Whether the trial court erred in conducting proceedings outside defendant's presence. 4. Whether voir dire procedures were constitutionally adequate.

The Appellate Court held that penalty phase errors under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 require reversal of the death judgment when both parties agree such errors occurred, but affirmed all other aspects of the judgment including the murder convictions and remanded for further proceedings.

The case is inapplicable when penalty phase proceedings do not involve Racial Justice Act violations, when parties dispute the existence of such violations, or in non-capital cases where the Racial Justice Act standards may not apply with the same force.

The case leaves open what specific Racial Justice Act violations occurred (as the court did not detail them), what procedures should govern remand proceedings, and whether similar analysis would apply to other types of penalty phase errors in capital cases.