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

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.110 (2026)

Judge must excuse unfit person

✓ 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 a judge to excuse from further jury service any juror, who in the opinion of the judge, has manifested unfitness as a juror by reason of bias, prejudice, indifference, inattention or any physical or mental defect or by reason of conduct or practices incompatible with proper and efficient jury service.
[ 1988 c 188 s 11; 1925 ex.s. c 191 s 3; RRS s 97-1.]

Notes:

Legislative findings—Severability—Effective date—1988 c 188: See notes following RCW 2.36.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 105 cases (39 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: State v. Sassen Van Elsloo, 425 P.3d 807 (Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sassen Van Elsloo, 425 P.3d 807 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 36× “170; RCW 2.36.110; CrR 6.5. The operation of these statutes and rules depends on whether the juror is a potential, impaneled, or deliberating juror.”
State v. Depaz, 204 P.3d 217 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 19× “We reject Depaz's request to extend Elmore because the concerns present in a case involving juror nullification are not present in a case involving the removal of a juror for communicating with a third party.”
State v. Depaz, 165 Wash. 2d 842 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 19× “We reject Depaz’s request to extend Elmore because the concerns present in a case involving juror nullification are not present in a case involving the removal of a juror for communicating with a third party.”
State v. Elmore, 123 P.3d 72 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 12× “¶ 7 The trial judge then heard argument from counsel as to whether the information provided was sufficient to remove Juror 8 and replace him with an alternate pursuant to RCW 2.36.110 (making it the duty of the trial judge to excuse any juror who, in the opinion of the trial…”
State v. Elmore, 155 Wash. 2d 758 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 11× “¶7 The trial judge then heard argument from counsel as to whether the information provided was sufficient to re *764 move Juror 8 and replace him with an alternate pursuant to RCW 2.36.110 (making it the duty of the trial judge to excuse any juror who, in the opinion of the…”
State v. Lawler, 374 P.3d 278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “First, RCW 2.36.110 provides: It shall be the duty of a judge to excuse from further jury service any juror, who in the opinion of the judge, has manifested unfitness as a juror by reason of bias, prejudice, indifference, inattention or any physical or mental defect or by reason…”
State v. Jorden, 11 P.3d 866 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “The court found that RCW 2.36.110, [3] not RCW 4.44.240, [4] governed the issue and allowed the parties to argue and to present witnesses.”
State v. Jorden, 103 Wash. App. 221 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “The court found that RCW 2.36.110, 3 not RCW 4.44.240, 4 governed the issue and allowed the parties to argue and to present witnesses.”
State Of Washington v. Mario R Guevara-diaz, 456 P.3d 869 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “30 RCW 2.36.110; CrR 6.4(c)(1); see State v.”
State v. Rafay, 285 P.3d 83 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “¶205 RCW 2.36.110 governs the removal of jurors: It shall be the duty of a judge to excuse from further jury service any juror, who in the opinion of the judge, has manifested unfitness as a juror by reason of bias, prejudice, indifference, inattention or any physical or mental…”
Carter v. Jury Comm'n of Greene Cty., 396 U.S. 320 (1970). · cites it 2× “) (disqualification on account of "vicious habits"); Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.110 (1959) ("unfit persons" must be excused).”
State v. Rice, 844 P.2d 416 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “In RCW 2.36.110 the Legislature invests the judge with the power to excuse from further jury service any juror, who in the opinion of the judge, has manifested unfitness as a juror by reason of bias, prejudice, indifference, inattention or any physical or mental defect or by…”
Show all 105 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.