General Rules

	
                                                       GR 37
                                                  JURY SELECTION

     (a) Policy and Purpose. The purpose of this rule is to eliminate the unfair exclusion of potential jurors based on
race or ethnicity.

     (b) Scope. This rule applies in all jury trials.

     (c) Objection. A party may object to the use of a peremptory challenge to raise the issue of improper bias. The
court may also raise this objection on its own. The objection shall be made by simple citation to this rule, and any
further discussion shall be conducted outside the presence of the panel. The objection must be made before the
potential juror is excused, unless new information is discovered.

     (d) Response. Upon objection to the exercise of a peremptory challenge pursuant to this rule, the party exercising
the peremptory challenge shall articulate the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised.

     (e) Determination. The court shall then evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremptory challenge in light of
the totality of circumstances. If the court determines that an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a
factor in the use of the peremptory challenge, then the peremptory challenge shall be denied. The court need not find
purposeful discrimination to deny the peremptory challenge. The court should explain its ruling on the record.

     (f) Nature of Observer. For purposes of this rule, an objective observer is aware that implicit, institutional, and
unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in the unfair exclusion of potential jurors
in Washington State.

     (g) Circumstances Considered. In making its determination, the circumstances the court should consider include,
but are not limited to, the following:

     (i) the number and types of questions posed to the prospective juror, which may include consideration of whether
the party exercising the peremptory challenge failed to question the prospective juror about the alleged concern or the
types of questions asked about it;

     (ii) whether the party exercising the peremptory challenge asked significantly more questions or different
questions of the potential juror against whom the peremptory challenge was used in contrast to other jurors;

     (iii) whether other prospective jurors provided similar answers but were not the subject of a peremptory challenge
by that party;

     (iv) whether a reason might be disproportionately associated with a race or ethnicity; and

     (v) whether the party has used peremptory challenges disproportionately against a given race or ethnicity, in the
present case or in past cases.

     (h) Reasons Presumptively Invalid. Because historically the following reasons for peremptory challenges have
been associated with improper discrimination in jury selection in Washington State, the following are presumptively
invalid reasons for a peremptory challenge:

     (i) having prior contact with law enforcement officers;

     (ii) expressing a distrust of law enforcement or a belief that law enforcement officers engage in racial profiling;

     (iii) having a close relationship with people who have been stopped, arrested, or convicted of a crime;

     (iv) living in a high-crime neighborhood;

     (v) having a child outside of marriage;

     (vi) receiving state benefits; and

     (vii) not being a native English speaker.

     (i) Reliance on Conduct. The following reasons for peremptory challenges also have historically been associated
with improper discrimination in jury selection in Washington State: allegations that the prospective juror was
sleeping, inattentive, or staring or failing to make eye contact; exhibited a problematic attitude, body language, or
demeanor; or provided unintelligent or confused answers. If any party intends to offer one of these reasons or a
similar reason as the justification for a peremptory challenge, that party must provide reasonable notice to the court
and the other parties so the behavior can be verified and addressed in a timely manner. A lack of corroboration by the
judge or opposing counsel verifying the behavior shall invalidate the given reason for the peremptory challenge.

[Adopted effective April 24, 2018.]