The California Supreme Court has overturned the death sentence of a Los Angeles gang member convicted in a 1991 murder case, ruling that a prosecutor’s comparison of the Black defendant to a Bengal tiger violated California’s Racial Justice Act.
The unanimous decision marks the first time the state’s high court has reversed a death sentence under the 2020 law, which allows defendants and prisoners to challenge convictions or sentences if racial bias played a role in their case.
Anthony Bankston, a Bloods gang member, represented himself at trial more than three decades ago. A jury convicted him in connection with separate shootings, including the killing of Benson Jones and the attempted murder of Jones’ brother, Benjamin. Bankston was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder.
During the penalty phase, a Los Angeles prosecutor told jurors a story about a journalist who viewed a Bengal tiger in a zoo but was told by a hunter that he had not seen the animal in its true state. The prosecutor described the tiger in the wild with its claws, fangs and growl, using the story to argue that Bankston, dressed in a suit and tie in court, was not the same person he was on the street. The prosecutor called him “a killing machine.”
The Supreme Court concluded that the analogy carried an unacceptable risk of racial bias and could have influenced the jury’s decision to impose a death sentence. Bankston’s murder convictions remain in place, but the case will return to a trial court for resentencing.
Justice Leondra Kruger, writing for the court, said the Bengal tiger story has appeared in multiple criminal cases over the years and should no longer be used in California courtrooms. While the court did not say every animal comparison violates the Racial Justice Act, it found that this particular example falls within concerns the Legislature identified when it passed the law.
The Racial Justice Act specifically addresses language and imagery that can dehumanize defendants or appeal to racial stereotypes, including some animal comparisons. The law was enacted after years of debate over racial disparities in policing, prosecution and sentencing.
The court noted that ordinary expressions involving animals, such as “quiet as a mouse” or “free as a bird,” would not necessarily amount to violations. But the justices said prosecutors may not rely on imagery that risks invoking racial prejudice, particularly in a capital case where jurors are deciding whether a person should live or die.
The ruling was one of four decisions issued this week by the California Supreme Court involving claims brought under the Racial Justice Act.
In two other cases, the court upheld death sentences for Alex Demolle, who was convicted of raping and murdering an 11-year-old girl, and Marcos Esquivel Barrera, who was sentenced to death for murdering two of his children. In a fourth case involving two condemned prisoners of Southeast Asian descent, the court modified earlier rulings, though not on the basis of their Racial Justice Act claims.
A spokesperson for the Judicial Council of California confirmed that Bankston’s case is the first in which the state Supreme Court has reversed a death sentence because of violations of the Racial Justice Act.
Original source: CalMatters
