The California Supreme Court has agreed to review an appellate court’s reversal of a rape conviction for former San Francisco 49ers star Dana Stubblefield, likely putting off local prosecutors’ decision on pursuing a second trial through at least the end of this year.

Justices on Wednesday granted a review of a petition from the state Attorney General’s Office, representing the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, to challenge a decision in December by the Sixth District Court of Appeal to overturn Stubblefield’s 2020 conviction and 15-years-to-life prison term.

The appellate court found that a prosecutor’s remarks to jurors in closing arguments violated the state’s Racial Justice Act, which aims to provide relief to defendants whose trials were prejudiced by racial bias. The petition argues that the Sixth District ruling was not tantamount to an exoneration and that any violation of the act did not warrant the vacating of the conviction and corresponding sentence.

But no formal arguments before the Supreme Court will happen anytime soon: The court stated that it won’t accept legal briefs from the stakeholders until after it adjudicates two automatic death penalty appeals from Los Angeles County that address the Racial Justice Act.

“We’re not shocked and this changes nothing. They haven’t said Court of Appeal is wrong. The practical effect is this case is going to get delayed for quite a while before there is any resolution to it,” said Kenneth Rosenfeld, Stubblefield’s lead trial attorney. “We respect the process and know this will take time.”

There is no estimate for when those priority cases might be decided, but another high-profile conviction reversal in Santa Clara County might provide a useful reference point. In 2022, an appellate court overturned murder convictions for three former Santa Clara County jail guards — who fatally beat mentally ill inmate Michael Tyree in 2015 — because a legal argument made at trial, known as natural and probable consequences, was outlawed by the state Legislature and retroactively applied to their case.

In that instance, the Supreme Court also granted review but put it in a queue behind a case that addressed related legal issues. Eight months passed before the court upheld the reversal, and the ensuing legal proceedings took more than a year to conclude: The district attorney’s office and defendants negotiated a voluntary manslaughter plea, with prosecutors citing the difficulties of securing a conviction in a second trial and the fact that the defendants were already nearing their parole dates.

Given that the high court has to resolve not one but two cases before turning to Stubblefield’s case, a similar timeframe for local prosecutors to get the case back and make a re-filing decision — they have stated their intention to pursue the charges again — is not out of the question.

Related Articles

Man suspected of committing two cold case rapes in Massachusetts discovered living on a yacht in California

San Jose man arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting two women

Monterey County inmate gets 25 years to life for sex assault on prison nurse

Ex-Bay Area dentist acquitted of sex assault, battery, but DA may retry case

East Bay caretaker was accused of pimping and raping dependent woman. Then the paternity test came back

Stubblefield is out of custody after he was freed last month following two months of legal wrangling between his attorneys, prosecutors and the county Superior Court over whether he was eligible for bail and release given that his sentence had been vacated. Ultimately, the matter was resolved by the same appellate court that overturned his conviction, and he was granted supervised release with no bail requirement.

His conviction and sentence were vacated by the Sixth District court on Dec. 26, and in their ruling the appellate judges took particular issue with an explanation given for why police did not search Stubblefield’s home for a gun, which was claimed to have been used during the alleged 2015 rape of a prospective babysitter at his Morgan Hill home. The lead prosecutor spoke of a “storm of controversy” that would have arisen from a police search of a famous Black man, which led to the higher court ruling that it allowed jurors to “feel justified or even compelled by misguided notions of racial fairness to overlook or discount the absence of a gun” when determining Stubblefield’s guilt.

Stubblefield — who played for the 49ers from 1993 to 2001 as a tackle and was NFL Defensive Player of the Year in 1997 — and his legal team have maintained that the sexual encounter was an instance of paid sex and criticized the trial court for preventing them from introducing evidence of the victim as a sex worker, as well as the alleged recanting of the gun claim. The defense team also contends that the Racial Justice Act violation has so tainted the case that Stubblefield cannot be fairly tried should he face similar charges again.

This is a developing report. Check back later for updates.