Mission Local26%
Nima Momeni sentencing delayed again after defense alleges racially biased trial 18%
By Annelise Bowers12%
7/15/2026, 4:25:57 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anecdotal, and Confirmation Bias, with Burden of Proof as the most egregious example at 11.9% saturation with 96 hits. Analysis detected 799 faulty-reasoning hits from 808 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.2% and a BS Rank of 18% (13,108 of 15,904 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.40% of the article peer group.
The sentencing of Nima Momeni, who was found guilty in December 2024 of murdering Cash App founder Bob Lee, will be delayed again.
This afternoon, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Patrick Thompson ruled to allow an evidentiary hearing on whether Momeni’s trial was influenced in some way by racial bias.
In that trial, which concluded nearly 18 months ago after seven weeks of testimony and seven days of jury deliberations, Momeni was found guilty of second-degree murder for stabbing Lee, and faces a sentence of up to life in prison.
Momeni’s current attorney, Daniel Shriro, does not appear to have been a part of the legal team that defended him at that trial.
Shriro cited several examples of language used by witnesses and lawyers at the trial as evidence of alleged racial bias against Momeni, who immigrated with his mother and sister from Tehran when he was 14 to seek asylum in the United States.
Shriro pointed to the judge allowing prosecutors to show jurors text messages from Momeni’s sister describing him as an “animal 24/7,” “overprotective psycho,” and “psychotic,” for example.
Prosecutors also, Shriro said, emphasized the defendant driving a white BMW (the BMW was captured on security footage at the scene of Lee’s killing, and witnesses testified that Momeni’s sister and mother attempted to sell the car before a police sergeant confiscated it from a local dealership).
Shriro also cited an incident where Assistant District Attorney Omid Talai referred to the murder as an “honor killing.”
“It’s bad because it’s character evidence,” Shriro said in court today.
“But it’s worse because the character traits are linked to the defendant’s ethnicity.”
Shriro also pointed to a line of questioning by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Alexandra Gordon that he said was “targeted at pro-defense witnesses” and may have affected deliberations of the jury.
Gordon, Shriro added, also made negative facial expressions, rolled her eyes, and reprimanded one of Momeni’s defense attorneys for using the term “young lady” to refer to someone in the courtroom.
“I fully expect that when Judge Gordon did that, her goal was to prevent sexism in her courtroom.
That is a noble goal,” said Shriro.
But he called the “jump to assume sexism,” evidence of Gordon’s implicit bias and how it aligned with stereotypes of the sexism of Middle Eastern men.
Under the California Racial Justice Act, a retrial or a reversal or modification of a sentence is possible if a judge decides there was racial bias in the trial.
This can include biased statements by attorneys, jurors, expert witnesses, or judges, the apparent exclusion of certain people from the jury based on race, or evidence of systemic bias in sentencing.
In the courtroom today, Thompson appeared skeptical of Shriro’s claims.
“What’s unclear to me is what you’re saying should have happened here,” Thompson told Shriro as the defense attorney began making his case.
Thompson interrupted Shriro at several points, pushing back against his examples of Gordon’s alleged bias.
Thompson dismissed the argument that Judge Gordon should have perceived “young lady” as a friendly statement rather than as insufficiently respectful, noting that judges have the right to manage their courtroom and that “Judges don’t dissect intentions.”
At times, Thompson appeared frustrated by Shriro’s arguments, which offered general instances and terms and did not provide longer quotes or context as to when they had occurred.
“This is not an evidentiary hearing,” Shriro said.
“No,” Thompson replied, “But you must provide enough evidence for a prima facie.”
Without that evidence, the judge could reject the appeal and the case would not proceed.
Assistant District Attorney Natalie Fuchs, who was representing the prosecution, called Shriro’s argument “abstract.”
The “facts that the defending council mentioned were overstated,” Fuchs added.
“It creates a narrative of the prosecution that is belied by the record.”
Furthermore, said Fuchs, words like “psycho” and “lunatic” were exempt from the Racial Justice Act because of their context.
Ultimately, however, Thompson agreed to allow the case to proceed to an evidentiary hearing set to take place on Aug.
14.
While there is “not necessarily” racial bias, Thompson said, “a nexus has been provided.”
Not all of the defense’s original claims will be allowed to proceed to the evidentiary hearing.
Only on the usage of terms such as “animal” and “psycho,” references to Momeni’s perceived instability of character, references to a keffiyeh, and whether the DA’s larger prosecutorial strategy was rooted in racial bias will be allowed.
Gordon’s alleged facial expressions, her barring of the term “young lady” and comments the prosecution made on the defense’s right to counsel will not proceed to an evidentiary hearing, ruled Thompson.
Still, said Thompson, he would let the case proceed.
“The court cannot weigh evidence.”
Judge Thompson said.
“This question is better answered in an evidentiary hearing.”
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.