Legal Opinion

State v. Momah

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 8, 2009No. 81096-6PublishedCited by 163 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtC. Johnson, J.

¶1 The Washington Constitution provides in relevant part that an accused has the right to “a speedy public trial by an impartial jury.” Const, art. I, § 22 (emphasis added). This case asks us to determine whether a defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial under article I, section 22 was violated when the trial court closed a portion of voir dire to safeguard the defendant’s right to a trial by an impartial jury. While our previous article I, section 22 cases have focused on the defendant’s right to a public trial, this case implicates both the right to a public trial and the right…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  2. Waller v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Washington v. RecuencoSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  5. State v. Bone-ClubWashington Supreme Court · 1995

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by163 opinions

  1. State v. SublettWashington Supreme Court · 2012
  2. State v. WiseWashington Supreme Court · 2012
  3. State v. PaumierWashington Supreme Court · 2012
  4. State v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 2014
  5. State v. LormorWashington Supreme Court · 2011

158 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API