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.
14 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2024 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Duren v. Missourigreen2 sentences2024To prove a fair cross section violation under the Sixth Amendment under 1 To determine whether our state constitution provides broader rights than the federal constitution in a particular context, we examine the constitutional guaranties in light of the six criteria outlined in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986). 2 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S. Ct. 664 , 58 L. 2024To prove a fair cross section violation under the Sixth Amendment under 1 To determine whether our state constitution provides broader rights than the federal constitution in a particular context, we examine the constitutional guaranties in light of the six criteria outlined in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986). 2 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S. Ct. 664 , 58 L. | 2 | 10 |
State v. Rupegreen1 sentence2014Rupe, 108 Wn.2d at 746 ( quoting Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 , 99 S. Ct. 664 , 58 L. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Orangegreen1 sentence2013For example, in United States v. Orange, 447 F.3d 792, 796 (10th Cir. 2006), a defendant presented evidence that in a given year, four groups were underrepresented in jury venires: African-Americans comprised 8.63 percent of the eligible population but only 5.06 percent of the venires, Native Americans comprised 4.27 percent of the eligible population but only 2.64 percent of venires, Asians comprised 1.64 percent of the eligible population but only 0.80 percent of venires, and Latinos comprised 2.74 percent of the eligible population but only 1.49 percent of the venires. | 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. Rivers
green
2 sentences2024In order to show a fair cross section violation, a defendant must show: “(1) a distinctive group (2) is unreasonably underrepresented in his own venire and in jury venires generally, (3) as a result of systematic exclusion in the jury selection process.” Id. 35 No. 38437-3-III State v. Howard In Rivers, the defendant argued two theories to meet his burden of showing the underrepresentation of black people in the jury pool resulted from systemic exclusions. 2024To prevail on a fair cross section claim under the Sixth Amendment, the Duren test requires a defendant prove: “(1) a distinctive group (2) is unreasonably underrepresented in his own venire and in jury venires generally, (3) as a result of systematic exclusion in the jury selection process.” Id. (citing Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 , 99 S. Ct. 664 , 58 L. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Cienfuegos
green
2 sentences2023Cienfuegos, 144 Wn.2d at 232 . 2018Ed. 2d 579 (1979). 23 RCW 2.36.054-.065; GR 18. 24 State v. Lanciloti, 165 Wn.2d 661, 668-69 , 201 P.3d 323 (2009). 25 State v. Cienfuegos, 144 Wn.2d 222, 232 , 25 P.3d 2011 (2001). 26 See Lanciloti, 185 Wn.2d at 664; LAWS OF 2009, ch. 325. 10 No. 75546-3-1-11 It is undisputed that black residents are a distinctive group in the community, but Lopez-Ramirez does not establish underrepresentation and systematic exclusion.27 The challenger must prove "that the representation of the group in venires is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number ofsuch persons in the community."28 Our Suprem | 2 | 2018–2023 |
Lockhart v. McCree
green
2 sentences2023“We have never invoked the fair-cross-section principle . . . to require petit juries, as opposed to jury panels or venires, to reflect the composition of the community at large.” Id. (citing Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 173 , 106 S. Ct. 1758 , 90 L. 2023“We have never invoked the fair-cross-section principle . . . to require petit juries, as opposed to jury panels or venires, to reflect the composition of the community at large.” Id. (citing Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 173 , 106 S. Ct. 1758 , 90 L. | 2 | 1994–2023 |
State v. Gunwall
green
2 sentences2024To prove a fair cross section violation under the Sixth Amendment under 1 To determine whether our state constitution provides broader rights than the federal constitution in a particular context, we examine the constitutional guaranties in light of the six criteria outlined in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986). 2 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S. Ct. 664 , 58 L. 2024To prove a fair cross section violation under the Sixth Amendment under 1 To determine whether our state constitution provides broader rights than the federal constitution in a particular context, we examine the constitutional guaranties in light of the six criteria outlined in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986). 2 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S. Ct. 664 , 58 L. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Suarez
neutral
1 sentence2020App. 2d 1032, 2018 WL 827172 at *6 (“A mere showing of underrepresentation does not establish systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process.”); State v. Suarez, noted at 143 Wn. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Lanciloti
green
1 sentence2018Ed. 2d 579 (1979). 23 RCW 2.36.054-.065; GR 18. 24 State v. Lanciloti, 165 Wn.2d 661, 668-69 , 201 P.3d 323 (2009). 25 State v. Cienfuegos, 144 Wn.2d 222, 232 , 25 P.3d 2011 (2001). 26 See Lanciloti, 185 Wn.2d at 664; LAWS OF 2009, ch. 325. 10 No. 75546-3-1-11 It is undisputed that black residents are a distinctive group in the community, but Lopez-Ramirez does not establish underrepresentation and systematic exclusion.27 The challenger must prove "that the representation of the group in venires is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number ofsuch persons in the community."28 Our Suprem | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Taylor v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2018Ed. 2d 690 (1975). 16 Id. at 530 . 2° Id. at 538 . 9 No. 75546-3-1-10 adequate "so long as it may be fairly said that the jury lists or panels are representative of the community."21 To establish a violation of the fair cross section requirement, a defendant must show that "(1) the group alleged to be excluded is a distinctive group in the community;(2)that the representation of this group in the source from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3)this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group 2018Ed. 2d 690 (1975). 16 Id. at 530 . 2° Id. at 538 . 9 No. 75546-3-1-10 adequate "so long as it may be fairly said that the jury lists or panels are representative of the community."21 To establish a violation of the fair cross section requirement, a defendant must show that "(1) the group alleged to be excluded is a distinctive group in the community;(2)that the representation of this group in the source from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3)this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Lanciloti
neutral
1 sentence2018Ed. 2d 579 (1979). 23 RCW 2.36.054-.065; GR 18. 24 State v. Lanciloti, 165 Wn.2d 661, 668-69 , 201 P.3d 323 (2009). 25 State v. Cienfuegos, 144 Wn.2d 222, 232 , 25 P.3d 2011 (2001). 26 See Lanciloti, 185 Wn.2d at 664; LAWS OF 2009, ch. 325. 10 No. 75546-3-1-11 It is undisputed that black residents are a distinctive group in the community, but Lopez-Ramirez does not establish underrepresentation and systematic exclusion.27 The challenger must prove "that the representation of the group in venires is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number ofsuch persons in the community."28 Our Suprem | 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.