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

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.065 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It shall be the duty of the judges of the superior court to ensure continued random selection of the master jury list and jury panels, which shall be done without regard to whether a person's name originally appeared on the list of registered voters, or on the list of licensed drivers and identicard holders, or both. The judges shall review the process from time to time and shall cause to be kept on file with the county clerk a description of the jury selection process. Any person who desires may inspect this description in said office.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as requiring uniform equipment or method throughout the state, so long as fair and random selection of the master jury list and jury panels is achieved.
[ 1993 c 408 s 7; 1988 c 188 s 6.]

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 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · 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× “RCW 2.36.065 provides it shall be the duty of the judges of the superior courts to ensure "continued random selection" of jury lists and panels.”
State Of Washington, V. Cody Terrell Wade, 534 P.3d 1221 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “And RCW 2.36.065 further assigns responsibility regarding jury selection, stating, “It shall be the duty of the judges of the superior court to ensure continued random selection of the master jury list and jury panels.”
Brady v. Fibreboard Corp., 857 P.2d 1094 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Two features of Washington's statutory jury selection process are pertinent to this appeal.”
Matter of Det. of Twining, 894 P.2d 1331 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “RCW 2.36.065 provides that it is the duty of the superior court judges to ensure random selection of the master jury list and the jury panels and requires judges to periodically review the process.”
City of Tukwila v. Garrett, 196 P.3d 681 (Wash. 2008). “914 (1914); RCW 2.36.065 (providing that "[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed as requiring uniform .”
State v. Twyman, 17 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2001). “” 21 RCW 2.36.065 provides that “[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed as requiring uniform .”
City of Tukwila v. Garrett, 165 Wash. 2d 152 (Wash. 2008). “914 (1914); RCW 2.36.065 (providing that “[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed as requiring uniform .”
Raymond Budd & Vickie Budd, V. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., 505 P.3d 120 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). ““Prejudice will be presumed only if there is a material departure from the statutory requirements. .”
State v. Twyman, 17 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2001). “" [21] RCW 2.36.065 provides that " [n]othing in this chapter shall be construed as requiring uniform .”
State v. Marsh, 24 P.3d 1127 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The purpose of Washington's jury selection statutes is to promote efficient jury administration and the opportunity for widespread participation by citizens. Laws of 1988, ch.”
State v. Marsh, 106 Wash. App. 801 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 2.36.065. If the venire selection process in question is in substantial compliance with the statutes, the defendant must show prejudice.”
State of Washington v. Joshua Q. Gerald (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “He points to a violation of RCW 2.36.065, which states: It shall be the duty of the judges of the superior court to ensure continued random selection of the master jury list and jury panels, which shall be done without regard to whether a person’s name originally appeared on the…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.