defendant exercises a peremptory challenge in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2021 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Robertsgreen wash · 2000 · cited in 4 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2001–2017 2 sentences 2017Ed. 2d 792 (2000)); see also State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 518 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000). 2007Id. at 316-17 ; see State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 518 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000) (holding that, “because Roberts has not demonstrated that jurors who should have been removed for cause actually sat on the panel, his rights were not violated”); State v. Fire, 145 Wn.2d 152, 165 , 34 P.3d 1218 (2001) (holding that, even where defendant who has used peremptory challenge after denial of motion to exclude juror for cause ultimately exhausts peremptory challenges, defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice if “convicted by a jury on which no biased juror sat”).	3	4
State v. Robertsgreen wash · 2001 · cited in 4 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2001–2017 2 sentences 2017Ed. 2d 792 (2000)); see also State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 518 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000). 2007Id. at 316-17 ; see State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 518 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000) (holding that, “because Roberts has not demonstrated that jurors who should have been removed for cause actually sat on the panel, his rights were not violated”); State v. Fire, 145 Wn.2d 152, 165 , 34 P.3d 1218 (2001) (holding that, even where defendant who has used peremptory challenge after denial of motion to exclude juror for cause ultimately exhausts peremptory challenges, defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice if “convicted by a jury on which no biased juror sat”).	3	4
United States v. Martinez-Salazargreen scotus · 2000 · cited in 4 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2001–2017 2 sentences 2017Therefore, Munzanreder was able to have an empaneled jury composed entirely of jurors he did not consider biased. ¶50 “[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.” State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) (citing United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 316-17 , 120 S. Ct. 774 , 145 L. 2017Therefore, Munzanreder was able to have an empaneled jury composed entirely of jurors he did not consider biased. ¶50 “[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.” State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) (citing United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 316-17 , 120 S. Ct. 774 , 145 L.	1	4
State v. Yatesgreen wash · 2007 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2017–2021 2 sentences 2021App. 394, 410 , 41 P.3d 495 (2002) (“[E]ven if a juror should have been excused for cause, once a peremptory challenge is exercised, some showing that a biased juror actually sat on the case is required.”); State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) abrogated by State v. Gregory, 192 Wn.2d 1 , 427 P.3d 621 (2018) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); In re Pers. 2019And Thomas cites no cases in support of ~ Subsequent cases addressing the issue have followed the reasoning in ~ ~ State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 632 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018) (“Where a trial court erroneously denies a defendant’s for-cause challenge and the defendant is forced to use a peremptory challenge to cure	1	3
State v. Yatesgreen wash · 2007 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2017–2021 2 sentences 2021App. 394, 410 , 41 P.3d 495 (2002) (“[E]ven if a juror should have been excused for cause, once a peremptory challenge is exercised, some showing that a biased juror actually sat on the case is required.”); State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) abrogated by State v. Gregory, 192 Wn.2d 1 , 427 P.3d 621 (2018) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); In re Pers. 2019And Thomas cites no cases in support of ~ Subsequent cases addressing the issue have followed the reasoning in ~ ~ State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 632 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018) (“Where a trial court erroneously denies a defendant’s for-cause challenge and the defendant is forced to use a peremptory challenge to cure	1	3
State v. Gregorygreen wash · 2018 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021App. 394, 410 , 41 P.3d 495 (2002) (“[E]ven if a juror should have been excused for cause, once a peremptory challenge is exercised, some showing that a biased juror actually sat on the case is required.”); State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) abrogated by State v. Gregory, 192 Wn.2d 1 , 427 P.3d 621 (2018) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); In re Pers.	1	1
Hill v. Coxgreen washctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021App. 394, 410 , 41 P.3d 495 (2002) (“[E]ven if a juror should have been excused for cause, once a peremptory challenge is exercised, some showing that a biased juror actually sat on the case is required.”); State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) abrogated by State v. Gregory, 192 Wn.2d 1 , 427 P.3d 621 (2018) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); In re Pers.	1	1
In re the Personal Restraint of Stockwellgreen washctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021Restraint of Stockwell, 160 Wn.	1	1
State v. Schiermangreen wash · 2015 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019And Thomas cites no cases in support of ~ Subsequent cases addressing the issue have followed the reasoning in ~ ~ State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 632 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018) (“Where a trial court erroneously denies a defendant’s for-cause challenge and the defendant is forced to use a peremptory challenge to cure 2019And Thomas cites no cases in support of ~ Subsequent cases addressing the issue have followed the reasoning in ~ ~ State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 632 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018) (“Where a trial court erroneously denies a defendant’s for-cause challenge and the defendant is forced to use a peremptory challenge to cure	1	1
State v. Clarkgreen washctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019And Thomas cites no cases in support of ~ Subsequent cases addressing the issue have followed the reasoning in ~ ~ State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 632 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018) (“Where a trial court erroneously denies a defendant’s for-cause challenge and the defendant is forced to use a peremptory challenge to cure 2019App. 166, 194 , 283 P.3d 1116 (2012) (“A defendant must demonstrate prejudice as a result of the court’s failure to strike a juror for cause...	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (2)

Case	Negative	Cited
State v. Yatesgreen wash · 2007 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2017–2021 2 sentences 2021App. 394, 410 , 41 P.3d 495 (2002) (“[E]ven if a juror should have been excused for cause, once a peremptory challenge is exercised, some showing that a biased juror actually sat on the case is required.”); State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) abrogated by State v. Gregory, 192 Wn.2d 1 , 427 P.3d 621 (2018) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); In re Pers. 2019And Thomas cites no cases in support of ~ Subsequent cases addressing the issue have followed the reasoning in ~ ~ State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 632 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018) (“Where a trial court erroneously denies a defendant’s for-cause challenge and the defendant is forced to use a peremptory challenge to cure	1	3
State v. Yatesgreen wash · 2007 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2017–2021 2 sentences 2021App. 394, 410 , 41 P.3d 495 (2002) (“[E]ven if a juror should have been excused for cause, once a peremptory challenge is exercised, some showing that a biased juror actually sat on the case is required.”); State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) abrogated by State v. Gregory, 192 Wn.2d 1 , 427 P.3d 621 (2018) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); In re Pers. 2019And Thomas cites no cases in support of ~ Subsequent cases addressing the issue have followed the reasoning in ~ ~ State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 746 , 168 P.3d 359 (2007) (“[W]here a defendant exercises a peremptory challenge after the court denies a defense motion to excuse the juror for cause, any potential violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is cured.”); State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 632 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018) (“Where a trial court erroneously denies a defendant’s for-cause challenge and the defendant is forced to use a peremptory challenge to cure	1	3

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Fire green wash · 2001 2 sentences 2007Id. at 316-17 ; see State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 518 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000) (holding that, “because Roberts has not demonstrated that jurors who should have been removed for cause actually sat on the panel, his rights were not violated”); State v. Fire, 145 Wn.2d 152, 165 , 34 P.3d 1218 (2001) (holding that, even where defendant who has used peremptory challenge after denial of motion to exclude juror for cause ultimately exhausts peremptory challenges, defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice if “convicted by a jury on which no biased juror sat”). 2007Id. at 316-17 , 120 S.Ct. 774 ; see State v. Roberts, 142 Wash.2d 471, 518 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000) (holding that, "because Roberts has not demonstrated that jurors who should have been removed for cause actually sat on the panel, his rights were not violated"); State v. Fire, 145 Wash.2d 152, 165 , 34 P.3d 1218 (2001) (holding that, even where defendant who has used peremptory challenge after denial of motion to exclude juror for cause ultimately exhausts peremptory challenges, defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice if "convicted by a jury on which no biased juror sat").	2	2007–2007
State v. Fire green wash · 2001 2 sentences 2007Id. at 316-17 ; see State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 518 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000) (holding that, “because Roberts has not demonstrated that jurors who should have been removed for cause actually sat on the panel, his rights were not violated”); State v. Fire, 145 Wn.2d 152, 165 , 34 P.3d 1218 (2001) (holding that, even where defendant who has used peremptory challenge after denial of motion to exclude juror for cause ultimately exhausts peremptory challenges, defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice if “convicted by a jury on which no biased juror sat”). 2007Id. at 316-17 , 120 S.Ct. 774 ; see State v. Roberts, 142 Wash.2d 471, 518 , 14 P.3d 713 (2000) (holding that, "because Roberts has not demonstrated that jurors who should have been removed for cause actually sat on the panel, his rights were not violated"); State v. Fire, 145 Wash.2d 152, 165 , 34 P.3d 1218 (2001) (holding that, even where defendant who has used peremptory challenge after denial of motion to exclude juror for cause ultimately exhausts peremptory challenges, defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice if "convicted by a jury on which no biased juror sat").	2	2007–2007
State v. Gentry green wash · 1995 2 sentences 2021The plurality holding in Fire, was that, even if a juror should have been dismissed for cause, where the defendant exercises a peremptory challenge to remove the juror and exhausts all peremptory challenges but there is no showing that a biased juror (against whom a peremptory challenge might have been used) sat on the panel, there is no 1 Cases cited in Clark include: State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250, 277-78 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999), State v. Robinson, 75 Wn.2d 230, 231-32 , 450 P.2d 180 (1969); State v. Collins, 50 Wn.2d 740, 744 , 314 P.2d 660 (1957); State v. Tharp, 42 Wn.2d 494, 500 , 256 P.2d 2021The plurality holding in Fire, was that, even if a juror should have been dismissed for cause, where the defendant exercises a peremptory challenge to remove the juror and exhausts all peremptory challenges but there is no showing that a biased juror (against whom a peremptory challenge might have been used) sat on the panel, there is no 1 Cases cited in Clark include: State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250, 277-78 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999), State v. Robinson, 75 Wn.2d 230, 231-32 , 450 P.2d 180 (1969); State v. Collins, 50 Wn.2d 740, 744 , 314 P.2d 660 (1957); State v. Tharp, 42 Wn.2d 494, 500 , 256 P.2d	1	2021–2021
State v. Tharp green wash · 1953 2 sentences 2021The plurality holding in Fire, was that, even if a juror should have been dismissed for cause, where the defendant exercises a peremptory challenge to remove the juror and exhausts all peremptory challenges but there is no showing that a biased juror (against whom a peremptory challenge might have been used) sat on the panel, there is no 1 Cases cited in Clark include: State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250, 277-78 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999), State v. Robinson, 75 Wn.2d 230, 231-32 , 450 P.2d 180 (1969); State v. Collins, 50 Wn.2d 740, 744 , 314 P.2d 660 (1957); State v. Tharp, 42 Wn.2d 494, 500 , 256 P.2d 2021The plurality holding in Fire, was that, even if a juror should have been dismissed for cause, where the defendant exercises a peremptory challenge to remove the juror and exhausts all peremptory challenges but there is no showing that a biased juror (against whom a peremptory challenge might have been used) sat on the panel, there is no 1 Cases cited in Clark include: State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250, 277-78 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999), State v. Robinson, 75 Wn.2d 230, 231-32 , 450 P.2d 180 (1969); State v. Collins, 50 Wn.2d 740, 744 , 314 P.2d 660 (1957); State v. Tharp, 42 Wn.2d 494, 500 , 256 P.2d	1	2021–2021
State v. Elmore green wash · 1999 1 sentence 2021The plurality holding in Fire, was that, even if a juror should have been dismissed for cause, where the defendant exercises a peremptory challenge to remove the juror and exhausts all peremptory challenges but there is no showing that a biased juror (against whom a peremptory challenge might have been used) sat on the panel, there is no 1 Cases cited in Clark include: State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250, 277-78 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999), State v. Robinson, 75 Wn.2d 230, 231-32 , 450 P.2d 180 (1969); State v. Collins, 50 Wn.2d 740, 744 , 314 P.2d 660 (1957); State v. Tharp, 42 Wn.2d 494, 500 , 256 P.2d	1	2021–2021
State v. Robinson green wash · 1969 2 sentences 2021The plurality holding in Fire, was that, even if a juror should have been dismissed for cause, where the defendant exercises a peremptory challenge to remove the juror and exhausts all peremptory challenges but there is no showing that a biased juror (against whom a peremptory challenge might have been used) sat on the panel, there is no 1 Cases cited in Clark include: State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250, 277-78 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999), State v. Robinson, 75 Wn.2d 230, 231-32 , 450 P.2d 180 (1969); State v. Collins, 50 Wn.2d 740, 744 , 314 P.2d 660 (1957); State v. Tharp, 42 Wn.2d 494, 500 , 256 P.2d 2021The plurality holding in Fire, was that, even if a juror should have been dismissed for cause, where the defendant exercises a peremptory challenge to remove the juror and exhausts all peremptory challenges but there is no showing that a biased juror (against whom a peremptory challenge might have been used) sat on the panel, there is no 1 Cases cited in Clark include: State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250, 277-78 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999), State v. Robinson, 75 Wn.2d 230, 231-32 , 450 P.2d 180 (1969); State v. Collins, 50 Wn.2d 740, 744 , 314 P.2d 660 (1957); State v. Tharp, 42 Wn.2d 494, 500 , 256 P.2d	1	2021–2021
State v. Elmore green wash · 1999 1 sentence 2021The plurality holding in Fire, was that, even if a juror should have been dismissed for cause, where the defendant exercises a peremptory challenge to remove the juror and exhausts all peremptory challenges but there is no showing that a biased juror (against whom a peremptory challenge might have been used) sat on the panel, there is no 1 Cases cited in Clark include: State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250, 277-78 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999), State v. Robinson, 75 Wn.2d 230, 231-32 , 450 P.2d 180 (1969); State v. Collins, 50 Wn.2d 740, 744 , 314 P.2d 660 (1957); State v. Tharp, 42 Wn.2d 494, 500 , 256 P.2d	1	2021–2021
State v. Collins green wash · 1957 2 sentences 2021The plurality holding in Fire, was that, even if a juror should have been dismissed for cause, where the defendant exercises a peremptory challenge to remove the juror and exhausts all peremptory challenges but there is no showing that a biased juror (against whom a peremptory challenge might have been used) sat on the panel, there is no 1 Cases cited in Clark include: State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250, 277-78 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999), State v. Robinson, 75 Wn.2d 230, 231-32 , 450 P.2d 180 (1969); State v. Collins, 50 Wn.2d 740, 744 , 314 P.2d 660 (1957); State v. Tharp, 42 Wn.2d 494, 500 , 256 P.2d 2021The plurality holding in Fire, was that, even if a juror should have been dismissed for cause, where the defendant exercises a peremptory challenge to remove the juror and exhausts all peremptory challenges but there is no showing that a biased juror (against whom a peremptory challenge might have been used) sat on the panel, there is no 1 Cases cited in Clark include: State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250, 277-78 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999), State v. Robinson, 75 Wn.2d 230, 231-32 , 450 P.2d 180 (1969); State v. Collins, 50 Wn.2d 740, 744 , 314 P.2d 660 (1957); State v. Tharp, 42 Wn.2d 494, 500 , 256 P.2d	1	2021–2021

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.170 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 30 (2001–2016) WA 7 (2001–2021)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check