Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.080 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) It is the policy of this state that all persons selected for jury service be selected at random from a fair cross section of the population of the area served by the court, and that all qualified citizens have the opportunity in accordance with chapter 135, Laws of 1979 ex. sess. to be considered for jury service in this state and have an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose.
(2) It is the policy of this state to maximize the availability of residents of the state for jury service. It also is the policy of this state to minimize the burden on the prospective jurors, their families, and employers resulting from jury service. The jury term and jury service should be set at as brief an interval as is practical given the size of the jury source list for the judicial district. The optimal jury term is one week or less. Optimal juror service is one day or one trial, whichever is longer.
(3) A citizen shall not be excluded from jury service in this state on account of membership in a protected class recognized in RCW 49.60.030, or on account of economic status.
[ 2018 c 23 s 1; 2015 c 7 s 3; 1992 c 93 s 2; 1979 ex.s. c 135 s 2; 1967 c 39 s 1; 1911 c 57 s 2; RRS s 95. Prior: 1909 c 73 s 2.]
Notes:
Severability—1979 ex.s. c 135: "If any provision of this amendatory act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1979 ex.s. c 135 s 12.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1968–2023 · leading case: Ryan Rocha v. King Cnty., 435 P.3d 325 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Ryan Rocha v. King Cnty., 435 P.3d 325 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “” However, RCW 2.36.080 does not provide a remedy for alleged violations of this provision.”
State Of Washington v. James H. Listoe, 475 P.3d 534 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “12 GR 37 should also be read in conjunction with RCW 2.36.080(3) which prohibits the exclusion of a potential juror “on account of membership in a protected class recognized in RCW 49.”
State v. Smith, 446 P.2d 571 (Wash. 1968). “The other ground upon which the panel was challenged was that it did not represent a cross-section of the community, inasmuch as certain classes of persons were, by the provisions of RCW 2.36.080, exempted from service. Under this statute officers of the United States and of the…”
City of Tukwila v. Garrett, 196 P.3d 681 (Wash. 2008). “Under the majority's logic, a resident of White Center, Washington, has supposed similar community values as a resident of Bellevue, Washington, to serve on a City of Bellevue municipal jury.”
City of Tukwila v. Garrett, 165 Wash. 2d 152 (Wash. 2008). “RCW 2.36.080(2) also states, “It also is the policy of this state to minimize the burden on the prospective jurors, their families, and employers resulting from jury service.”
Roberts v. Dudley, 993 P.2d 901 (Wash. 2000). “515 (prohibiting discrimination based on sex for the purposes of public assistance); RCW 2.36.080 (prohibiting exclusion from jury pools based on gender).”
State v. Rivers, 533 P.3d 410 (Wash. 2023). “, dissenting) (concluding the court should imply a cause of action for higher juror pay because King County’s “low pay and low reimbursement rate amounts to an exclusion on the basis of economic status, denying such jurors the opportunity to serve as promised in RCW…”
State Of Washington, V. Cody Terrell Wade, 534 P.3d 1221 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “2d at 19 ; RCW 2.36.080(3) (“A citizen shall not be excluded from jury service in this state on account of .”
State v. Nemitz, 19 P.3d 480 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 2.36.080(2). The State responds that, under the United States Constitution, the states can require jurors to be able to communicate in English.”
State v. Nemitz, 105 Wash. App. 205 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 2.36.080(2). The State responds that, under the United States Constitution, the states can require jurors to be able to communicate in English.”
Matter of Det. of Twining, 894 P.2d 1331 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “RCW 2.36.080(2). The prospective jurors in this trial were part of a list of 600 randomly selected people who were sent letters which included a section where they could request exemptions.”
Oliver L. Wuth v. Valley Med. Ctr. & Labcor, 189 Wash. App. 660 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “¶75 LabCorp contends that the trial court’s voir dire procedure and decision to remove eight potential jurors for *697 cause violated the mandate under RCW 2.36.080(1) that juries be drawn from a “fair cross section of the population of the area served by the court.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.080(1) — 11 cases
State v. Rivers, 533 P.3d 410 (Wash. 2023). “, dissenting) (concluding the court should imply a cause of action for higher juror pay because King County’s “low pay and low reimbursement rate amounts to an exclusion on the basis of economic status, denying such jurors the opportunity to serve as promised in RCW…”
Ryan Rocha v. King Cnty., 435 P.3d 325 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “” However, RCW 2.36.080 does not provide a remedy for alleged violations of this provision.”
Oliver L. Wuth v. Valley Med. Ctr. & Labcor, 189 Wash. App. 660 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “¶75 LabCorp contends that the trial court’s voir dire procedure and decision to remove eight potential jurors for *697 cause violated the mandate under RCW 2.36.080(1) that juries be drawn from a “fair cross section of the population of the area served by the court.”
Brady v. Fibreboard Corp., 857 P.2d 1094 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Clark, 274 P.3d 1058 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.080(2) — 9 cases
City of Tukwila v. Garrett, 196 P.3d 681 (Wash. 2008). “Under the majority's logic, a resident of White Center, Washington, has supposed similar community values as a resident of Bellevue, Washington, to serve on a City of Bellevue municipal jury.”
City of Tukwila v. Garrett, 165 Wash. 2d 152 (Wash. 2008). “RCW 2.36.080(2) also states, “It also is the policy of this state to minimize the burden on the prospective jurors, their families, and employers resulting from jury service.”
State v. Nemitz, 19 P.3d 480 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 2.36.080(2). The State responds that, under the United States Constitution, the states can require jurors to be able to communicate in English.”
State v. Nemitz, 105 Wash. App. 205 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 2.36.080(2). The State responds that, under the United States Constitution, the states can require jurors to be able to communicate in English.”
Matter of Det. of Twining, 894 P.2d 1331 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “RCW 2.36.080(2). The prospective jurors in this trial were part of a list of 600 randomly selected people who were sent letters which included a section where they could request exemptions.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.080(3) — 8 cases
Ryan Rocha v. King Cnty., 435 P.3d 325 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “” However, RCW 2.36.080 does not provide a remedy for alleged violations of this provision.”
State Of Washington v. James H. Listoe, 475 P.3d 534 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “12 GR 37 should also be read in conjunction with RCW 2.36.080(3) which prohibits the exclusion of a potential juror “on account of membership in a protected class recognized in RCW 49.”
State Of Washington, V. Cody Terrell Wade, 534 P.3d 1221 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “2d at 19 ; RCW 2.36.080(3) (“A citizen shall not be excluded from jury service in this state on account of .”
State v. Marsh, 24 P.3d 1127 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Marsh, 106 Wash. App. 801 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
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.