Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Irby

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 27, 2011No. 82665-0Published

1DissentMadsen, C.J.

¶22 (dissenting) — The majority treats the routine process used for excusing several potential jurors in this case as a critical stage of a criminal trial. However, a trial court has broad discretion to excuse jurors for a range of valid reasons having nothing to do with the defendant’s case. Numerous decisions from the United States Supreme Court, other federal courts, and state courts show that the process of excusing potential jurors for personal reasons such as hardship is distinct from voir dire (when potential jurors are introduced to the substantive legal and factual issues of a…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  4. Bourjaily v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Taylor v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975

34 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