USA – WASHINGTON Trends and Developments Contributed by: Alexander A Baehr and Molly Gibbons, Summit Law Group
intentional race discrimination as well as “implic- it, institutional, and unconscious” racial and eth- nic biases. (see also Matter of Rhone, 528 P.3d 824 (Wash 2023) (reaffirming the importance of having a modified version of the Batson test that provides more protections to litigants)). Litiga- tors in Washington state should be cognisant of this rule when exercising peremptory challenges during jury selection and should always be pre- pared to justify any peremptory challenges in the event that an objection is raised. Upon objection to the exercise of a peremp- tory challenge pursuant to General Rule 37, the party exercising the peremptory challenge must explain the reasons why the peremptory chal- lenge has been exercised. Under General Rule 37, a judge is required to deny the peremptory challenge if “an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge”; the court need not find purposeful discrimination to deny the peremp- tory challenge.
General Rule 37 also identifies presumptively invalid reasons for a peremptory challenge that have historically been associated with discrimi- nation in jury selection. These include (but are not limited to) “prior contact with law enforcement officers”, “expressing a distrust of law enforce- ment”, “not being a native English speaker”, and “living in a high-crime neighbo[u]rhood”.
1514 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook