Former San Francisco 49er Dana Stubblefield, who used an anti-racism law to toss out a rape conviction, has now also won the chance to argue he should be free from custody as he waits to see if the California Supreme Court will take up the case or if he may face a possible new trial on the charges.
On Feb. 5, a three-justice panel of the California Sixth District Court of Appeal in San Jose tossed out a Santa Clara County judge's decision rejecting Stubblefield's petition for release from jail while the criminal case against him moves forward on its next steps.
That decision, in turn, comes about a month-and-a-half after the same court ruled Stubblefield couldn't be convicted of rape, despite a woman's testimony and physical evidence linking him to the alleged crime, because prosecutors allegedly made racially discriminatory statements.
California Sixth District Appellate Justice Mary Greenwood
| Ballotpedia
Stubblefield, now 54 years old, is a retired standout NFL defensive lineman. Stubblefield played 10 years in the NFL, including his first five seasons with the San Francisco 49ers. He was named Defensive Rookie of the Year in 1993.
Most recently, however, Stubblefield was charged and convicted of rape.
According to court records, prosecutors accused Stubblefield of allegedly luring a 31-year-old woman to his house by seeking a babysitter. Prosecutors said he allegedly interviewed the woman for 20 minutes, but then allegedly invited her back to the house by text message, allegedly offering her payment for her time.
According to court documents, prosecutors say Stubblefield then allegedly raped the woman at gunpoint, before paying her $80 and allowing her to leave.
Prosecutors presented physical evidence backing the woman's rape claims, including DNA evidence.
Stubblefield has claimed the sex was consensual, in exchange for payment. Stubblefield's lawyer has called the woman a "sex worker."
A jury convicted Stubblefield of the crime at trial in 2020, and a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge sentenced Stubblefield to 15 years to life in prison.
Stubblefield appealed the conviction, however, accusing prosecutors of racial bias.
Specifically, Stubblefield noted that prosecutors at trial told the jury police did not search his house for the gun prosecutors alleged he used in the sexual assault, because it would "open up a storm of controversy" to conduct a highly visible search of the home of a "famous black man."
Stubblefield's lawyers contended this admission by prosecutors, in a bid to explain why the alleged gun was never admitted into evidence, wrongly drew attention to Stubblefield's race, injected racial bias into the proceedings and implied that police would have found the gun, if they had searched the house.
They argued on appeal that these statements violated a California law, born of the "anti-racism" movement that swept California and other states with Democratic majorities in the wake of the death of George Floyd in 2020. The law, known as the California Racial Justice Act, made it far easier for black defendants, in particular, to challenge prosecutions and convictions by asserting they were motivated by racial animus.
The law specifically bars prosecutors from charging or convicting anyone "on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin.”
The Sixth District Appeals Court agreed with Stubblefield that the statements from prosecutors meant they "exhibited bias or animus towards" Stubblefield because of his race.
Under the law, it also doesn't matter if the "exhibited bias or animus" was "purposeful."
The Sixth District Court tossed out Stubblefield's sentence under the CRJA law in December 2024.
Santa Clara County prosecutors could choose to seek to appeal that ruling to the California Supreme Court or potentially seek to retry Stubblefield.
However, while Stubblefield awaits that decision, he has remained in jail.
On Dec. 31, Stubblefield asked the Santa Clara County judge to release him from prison immediately, to be free on his own recognizance, pending the outcome of any appeals or a potential new trial.
The judge rejected that petition, however, saying he lacked jurisdiction to decide because his court had not yet received an order from the appellate court, known as a remittur, formally tossing out Stubblefield's conviction.
Stubblefield again appealed to the Sixth District.
There, attorneys from the office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta apparently reversed their position and did not oppose Stubblefield's appeal, "conceding" in arguments that the lower court was wrong to claim it couldn't rule on Stubblefield's petition yet.
The Sixth District court then tossed out the lower court's order, and directed the court to hold another hearing on Stubblefield's petition to be released from prison.
"The plain language of the statutory scheme gives trial courts jurisdiction to hear a motion for release pending appeal even after a sentence of imprisonment and the filing of a notice of appeal," the appellate panel wrote.
"Nothing in the language or structure of the statutory scheme excludes defendants in Stubblefield’s procedural posture, and the relevant case law is consistent with his having the right to be heard on the motion. In short, we see no legal grounds or practical reasons for treating Stubblefield contrarily, particularly in light of our decision reversing his conviction."
The decision was authored by Sixth District Justice Mary J. Greenwood. Justices Adrienne M. Grover and Cynthia C. Lie concurred in the ruling.
Stubblefield was represented on appeal by attorney Joseph V. Doyle.