When Ernest Dykes was brought to trial on death penalty charges in Alameda County, California in the mid-1990s, it was reasonably expected that prosecutors and defense attorneys alike would work hard to shape the jury to their benefit. What Mr. Dykes (who is Black) didn’t know until recently, however, was just how far the prosecution would go to curate their ideal jury.
In April 2024, Alameda County, California prosecutors discovered index cards in Mr. Dykes’ case that revealed prosecutors’ illegal efforts to systematically exclude potential jurors based on their race and religion. One Black female prospective juror who was excluded was described as a “Short, Fat, Troll.” Notes about another Black woman stated, “Says race is no issue, but I don’t believe her.” Jewish people were similarly excluded from the jury box. On one notecard for a white male, the prosecutor noted that he “like[d] him better than any other Jew, but no way.” Dykes’ Motion for Resentencing further alleges that the prosecutor in the case created a list solely of Black jurors – evidently to identify one that the prosecution would keep in order to defeat any potential Batson challenge.
Court documents and other evidence now confirm that from the 1980s through at least the late 2000s, Alameda County prosecutors documented jurors by race and religion, as a means of determining who they would exclude from jury service on capital cases. Their actions were in direct conflict with the law and the Supreme Court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky. The discovery prompted a new review of 34 capital convictions in Alameda County, and the resentencing of 18 people to terms less than death. Fifteen of the 34 cases identified for review involved defendants of color (16 cases are still pending.) In almost three-quarters of the cases eligible for resentencing (25 of 34), the defendants were people of color.
