Dana Stubblefield was granted his release from custody more than four years after the former NFL star was convicted of rape and more than six weeks after that conviction was reversed by a California appellate court because of “racially discriminatory language” used by the prosecution during the trial.
California Superior Court Judge Hector Ramon made the ruling Friday in Santa Clara, allowing Stubblefield his freedom, without having to post cash bail, while authorities weigh whether to refile charges. Stubblefield is required to wear an ankle monitor, cannot possess firearms and is not allowed to contact his accuser.
“We expect him to be home tonight,” Allen Sawyer, one of the attorneys who represented Stubblefield, told The Times by phone. “As my partner said, he’ll be having a late dinner with his kids.”
Santa Clara County assistant district attorney Terry Harman released a statement to The Times :
“A jury unanimously found Mr. Stubblefield guilty of raping a woman at gunpoint, he was given an appropriate sentence, and we felt that justice had been served. That justice has been interrupted and although we are disappointed that the judge released Mr. Stubblefield from custody while we await a decision from the California Supreme Court, we remain focused on the sexual assault that occurred, the victim, and the need for accountability and community safety.”
Stubblefield, a former defensive player of the year who spent 11 seasons with the San Francisco 49ers, Washington Redskins and Oakland Raiders, was charged in May 2016 with raping a woman at gunpoint the previous year. During his trial, Stubblefield’s defense argued the sex was consensual.
In October 2020, Stubblefield was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison after a jury found him guilty of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation and false imprisonment, and that he used a firearm in committing the first two offenses.
The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed Stubblefield’s conviction in December based on the California Racial Justice Act of 2020, which prohibits judges, attorneys and law enforcement officers, among others, from exhibiting “bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin.”
The appellate court’s decision was based on language used in the prosecution’s closing argument.
