The Fourth District's published opinion in People v. Superior Court, No. E086779, granted the People's writ petition and directed disqualification of Judge Samah Shouka from the RJA hearing of Russell Austin, who faces the death penalty in the 2018 killing of Erica Johnson.
Austin's RJA motion argues the Riverside County District Attorney's Office charges Black defendants with special circumstances and seeks the death penalty more frequently than similarly situated White defendants. The claim relies on statistical data covering DAO homicide filings from 2006 through 2019.
Shouka worked as a deputy district attorney in the DAO's homicide unit from 2015 to 2018. Prosecutors moved to disqualify her on that basis. Judge Jeffrey B. Jones denied the amended statement of disqualification on August 12, 2025, concluding the People had offered only conclusory statements and that Shouka's prior service was not logically related to her impartiality. Jones emphasized that Shouka had no involvement in Austin's case at the DAO, and that the 28 cases the People identified as ones she worked on were not among the 21 comparison cases Austin intends to rely on.
Acting Presiding Justice Miller, joined by Justices Codrington and Menetrez, reached a different conclusion. The panel held that the relevant question was not whether Shouka worked on Austin's case or the specific comparison cases, but whether the RJA hearing would require examination of the DAO's broader charging culture during a period when she was an active participant in it.
The record showed Shouka attended staffing meetings where homicide charging decisions were made and made filing recommendations in murder cases. Her former supervisor described the unit as highly collaborative.
The panel drew on a formal opinion from the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions, which had distinguished judges who participated in developing or directing charging policy from those who merely followed it. The appellate court held that Shouka's work as a filing and trial homicide prosecutor placed her in the former category, and that her actions were intertwined with the institution as a whole.
The court stopped short of finding actual bias. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(A)(iii), the appearance standard requires only that a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt as to impartiality.
The opinion is expressly limited in scope. The court held that its conclusion does not mean any former prosecutor must be recused in every RJA case, and that each such case should be determined based on the facts and circumstances involved. The panel noted it is simultaneously reviewing a related case, People v. Mosby, No. E086782, involving the same judge, and took judicial notice of records from that proceeding.