Wash. Rev. Code » Title 2 · Chapter 2.36
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.063 (2025)

Compilation of jury source list, master jury list, and selection of jurors by electronic data processing

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The judge or judges of the superior court of any county may employ a properly programmed electronic data processing system or device to compile the jury source list, and to compile the master jury list and to randomly select jurors from the master jury list.
[ 1993 c 408 s 6; 1988 c 188 s 5; 1973 2nd ex.s. c 13 s 1.]

Notes:

Severability—Effective dates—1993 c 408: See notes following RCW 2.36.054.
Legislative findings—Severability—Effective date—1988 c 188: See notes following RCW 2.36.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1991–2016 · leading case: State v. Tingdale, 817 P.2d 850 (Wash. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Tingdale, 817 P.2d 850 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 2× “In accordance with former RCW 2.36.063 and former RCW 2.36.093, both the master jury list and the jury panel were randomly selected.”
State v. Jones, 372 P.3d 755 (Wash. 2016). “063 (“The judge or judges of the superior court of any county may employ a properly programmed electronic data processing system or device to compile the jury source list, and to compile the master jury list and to randomly select jurors from the master jury list.”
Brady v. Fibreboard Corp., 857 P.2d 1094 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “Two features of Washington's statutory jury selection process are pertinent to this appeal.”
State v. Jones, No. 89321-7 (Wash. Apr. 21, 2016). “, RCW 2.36.063 ("The judge or judges of the superior court N.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.