Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Vineberggreen2 sentences1995See People v. Vineberg, 125 Cal. App.3d at 137 , 177 Cal.Rptr. 819 . 1995See People v. Vineberg, 125 Cal. App.3d at 137 , 177 Cal.Rptr. 819 . | 2 | 2 |
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwoodgreen2 sentences2017In McDonough, the Supreme Court held that "to obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause." Id. at 556 . 2011The party seeking a new trial must show that a juror “failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 555-56 , 104 S. Ct. 845 , 78 L. | 1 | 14 |
In re the Detention of Brotengreen1 sentence2016To show misconduct, “a party must prove (1) that ‘a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire’ and (2) that ‘a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.’ ” Broten, 130 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Balisok
green
2 sentences2010Ed. 2d 663 (1984)). “ ‘A strong, affirmative showing of misconduct is necessary in order to overcome the policy favoring stable and certain verdicts and the secret, frank and free discussion of the evidence by the jury.’ ” Elmore, 162 Wn.2d at 267 (quoting State v. Balisok, 123 Wn.2d 114, 117-18 , 866 P.2d 631 (1994)). ¶28 “In order to receive a new trial, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Elmore, 162 Wn.2d at 267 . 2007“A strong, affirmative showing of misconduct is necessary in order to overcome the policy favoring stable and certain verdicts and the secret, frank and free discussion of the evidence by the jury.” State v. Balisok, 123 Wn.2d 114, 117-18 , 866 P.2d 631 (1994). ¶72 In order to receive a new trial, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. | 3 | 2007–2010 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Elmore
green
2 sentences2010Ed. 2d 663 (1984)). “ ‘A strong, affirmative showing of misconduct is necessary in order to overcome the policy favoring stable and certain verdicts and the secret, frank and free discussion of the evidence by the jury.’ ” Elmore, 162 Wn.2d at 267 (quoting State v. Balisok, 123 Wn.2d 114, 117-18 , 866 P.2d 631 (1994)). ¶28 “In order to receive a new trial, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Elmore, 162 Wn.2d at 267 . 2010Ed. 2d 663 (1984)). “ ‘A strong, affirmative showing of misconduct is necessary in order to overcome the policy favoring stable and certain verdicts and the secret, frank and free discussion of the evidence by the jury.’ ” Elmore, 162 Wn.2d at 267 (quoting State v. Balisok, 123 Wn.2d 114, 117-18 , 866 P.2d 631 (1994)). ¶28 “In order to receive a new trial, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Elmore, 162 Wn.2d at 267 . | 2 | 2010–2024 |
State v. Cho
green
2 sentences2017It added that "[t]he motives for concealing information may vary, but only those reasons that affect a juror's impartiality can truly be said to affect the fairness of a trial." Id. 10 As observed in State v. Cho, 108 Wn. 2007McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556 ; Cho, 108 Wn. | 2 | 2007–2017 |
In Re Elmore
green
1 sentence2024Restraint of Elmore, 162 Wn.2d 236, 267 , 172 P.3d 335 (2007). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Boiko
green
1 sentence2018State v. Boiko, 138 Wn. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.