Washington v. Love (Majority)
Annotate this CaseAt the conclusion of voir dire questioning, counsel exercised for cause challenges orally at the bench and subsequently exercised peremptory challenges silently by exchanging a list of jurors and alternatively striking names from it. All of voir dire, including the juror challenges, occurred in open court, on the record, and in full view of any observer in the courtroom. This issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether that method of challenging jurors after voir dire (a method commonly employed in trial courts around the state) violated the constitutional right to a public trial. After review, the Court held that the juror challenges in this case were exercised in a manner consistent with the minimum safeguards of the public trial right.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.