An appeals court has recently upheld the life sentence of Jamon Buggs, a Black man convicted of the April 2019 murders of Darren Partch and Wendi Miller in Newport Beach, California. The court ruled that prosecutors were justified in not pursuing the death penalty, despite allegations of racial bias made against District Attorney (DA) Todd Spitzer under the state’s Racial Justice Act.
During internal DA deliberations, Spitzer reportedly made racially charged comments, asking about the race of Buggs’ former girlfriends and stating that he knew Black individuals who enhanced their status by dating White women. Although Spitzer vehemently denied violating the Racial Justice Act, a state appeals court judge noted that his actions suggested an understanding of his transgression.
Presiding Justice Kathleen E. O’Leary wrote that Spitzer took steps to address the harm caused to Buggs’ case and the integrity of the prosecution, even if he refused to acknowledge his expressed racial bias. The trial court, recognizing Spitzer’s efforts, concluded that Buggs should no longer be subject to the death penalty. The court found no error in this decision, considering the unique circumstances of the case.
The defense argued that Spitzer’s comments exemplified racial bias, while prosecutors contended that no adverse action was taken against Buggs due to his race, especially since the death penalty was not pursued. Orange County Superior Court Judge Gregg L. Prickett, who presided over Buggs’ trial, acknowledged that Spitzer violated the Racial Justice Act but agreed that removing the death penalty was the appropriate remedy. Prickett also determined that reducing the charges against Buggs was not in the interest of justice, given the facts of the killings.
The appellate judges emphasized that the intent of the Racial Justice Act is to eliminate racial bias from California’s justice system. They recognized the importance of district attorneys taking immediate and appropriate actions to address instances of racial bias, even before court intervention. The revelation of internal correspondence and Spitzer’s subsequent actions brought this conversation to the trial court’s attention.
