purpose of a peremptory challenge (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

purpose of a peremptory challenge in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2017 0 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Rhonered
wash · 2010 · cited in 7 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2011–2017
2 sentences

2017Those justices disagreed with the lead opinion that such a rule would change "a shield against discrimination into a sword cutting against the purpose of a peremptory challenge." Id. at 654 (C.

2017Those justices disagreed with the lead opinion that such a rule would change "a shield against discrimination into a sword cutting against the purpose of a peremptory challenge." Id. at 654 (C.

27

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Vreen green
washctapp · 2000
2 sentences

2013App. 662, 666-68 , 994 P.2d 905 (2000) (recognizing defendant's exercise of for-cause and peremptory challenges as part of right to fair trial and impartial jury under federal Sixth Amendment and article I, sections 21 and 22 of our state constitution); State v. Rhone, 168 Wn.2d 645, 654 , 229 P.3d 752 (2010) (noting Batson did not transform "a shield against discrimination into a sword cutting against the purpose of a peremptory challenge").

2013App. 662, 666-68 , 994 P.2d 905 (2000) (recognizing defendant’s exercise of for-cause and peremptory challenges as part of right to fair trial and impartial jury under federal Sixth Amendment and article I, sections 21 and 22 of our state constitution); State v. Rhone, 168 Wn.2d 645, 654 , 229 P.3d 752 (2010) (noting Batson did not transform “a shield against discrimination into a sword cutting against the purpose of a peremptory challenge”).

22013–2013

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.04.190 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.070 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.080 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.100 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.130 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.150 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.240 (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

WA 7 (2011–2017) LA 5 (1994–2022) KS 3 (2010–2020) CA 2 (1926–2003)

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