After spending 32 years under a death sentence, 1on February 9, 2026, the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County vacated the conviction and sentence of Franklin Lynch and ordered a new trial under California’s Racial Justice Act (CRJA).
Mr. Lynch’s attorneys argued that racial bias pervaded his trial, alleging the discriminatory use of preemptory strikes in jury selection in violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Batson v. Kentucky, and the use of racially discriminatory language at trial in violation of the CRJA. On February 4, 2026, District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson conceded Mr. Lynch was entitled to relief on his RJA claim, and that was the basis cited by the court for overturning his conviction and calling for a new trial.
Recent cases have shown Alameda County to have a long history of racial prejudice inside the Office of the District Attorney and certain courtrooms. Assistant District Attorney James Anderson — who led the office’s “Death Team” from 1991 to 2004, and was assigned to prosecute Mr. Lynch — had a documented pattern of racially discriminatory conduct.
According to Mr. Lynch’s petition challenging his conviction, his trial reflected that pattern. DA Anderson referred to Mr. Lynch as a “human reptile” in his closing arguments. Such characterizations have historically been used to dehumanize Black defendants in courtrooms. Research has identified a “vast overrepresentation” of this type of language in capital cases. In conceding the CRJA claim in Mr. Lynch’s case, DA Jones Dickson said 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.” DA Jones Dickson’s predecessor, Pamela Price, acknowledged in another capital case involving DA Anderson that his pervasive use of “[r]acist imagery and stereotyping” had “undermined the integrity” of that conviction as well.
Mr. Lynch’s claim also alleges that DA Anderson questioned Black prospective jurors differently during voir dire and used peremptory strikes to remove four prospective jurors, three of whom were Black women — a group that research indicates is “especially likely” to be excluded from jury service in capital trials. DA Anderson’s jury selection notes reflect a systematic ranking of Black prospective jurors, placing them “substantially” lower on his list than other members of the jury pool. His notes also included handwritten “B” markings and red dots next to Black prospective jurors, while the race of non-Black jurors was not identified. This practice, described by researcher Mary Bowman as ‘priming,’ which “involves presenting information in ways that trigger associations with other ideas” — can activate racial bias.
When questioned about similar jury selection notes during an appeal involving another death row defendant, DA Anderson told the New York Times in a 2005 interview that excluding Black and Jewish jurors was, in his words, an “axiom” and “just common sense.”
Allegations of racial bias in Mr. Lynch’s cases also extended into jury deliberations. Of the two Black jurors who participated in deliberations, one Black woman initially stated that she did not believe there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Lynch. Despite this, she later reported that “the racial pressure to change my vote was palpable,” and ultimately she changed her vote to align with the rest of the jury, resulting in Mr. Lynch’s conviction.
A date for Mr. Lynch’s retrial has not yet been set.
