SF Chronicle | 2026-06-02T14:58 PT
In contrasting decisions, the California Supreme Court said the tiger language was an appeal to racial prejudice that was grounds for overruling the defendant's death sentence, but "wolf in sheep's clothing" was a common expression that did not call attention to anyone's race. In the Los Angeles case, the court ruled that the language used by the prosecutor in the trial of Anthony Bankston was indeed racist language. "The prosecutor's comments were not only unfairly demeaning; they also improperly discouraged the jury from according Bankston the full measure of individual worth and mercy that the law allows," Justice Leondra Kruger wrote in a unanimous decision overturning Bankston's death sentence for a slaying in 1991. But the court upheld three other death sentences in separate rulings, including the Oakland case in which the prosecutor described Alex Demolle as a "wolf in sheep's clothing." Neil Sawhney, an ACLU attorney, expressed dismay at the court's narrow interpretation of the Racial Justice Act.
Impact: The ruling reinforces the Racial Justice Act's protections but sets a high bar for what constitutes racially biased language in criminal proceedings. It may influence how prosecutors approach sentencing arguments in capital cases.