Background
Thompson was charged with two counts of murder in the first degree, attempted robbery, attempted murder, and kidnapping, each with firearm enhancements. During jury selection conducted over Zoom, prospective juror 27 self-identified as Asian on the questionnaire and disclosed that his mother helped found the Freedom Project in Washington, an organization focused on dismantling incarceration systems. Juror 27 expressed views that the criminal justice system is deeply flawed, incarcerates too many people, is driven by profit and a need for retribution rather than rehabilitation, and focuses on punishment rather than preventing repeat crimes.
During voir dire, the State extensively questioned juror 27 about these views. Juror 27 acknowledged his criticisms but stated he would follow the court’s instructions and base his decision on the evidence. The defense did not challenge him for cause. However, at the close of voir dire, the State exercised a peremptory challenge against juror 27, citing his background connections to incarcerated individuals and his stated distrust of the criminal justice system. Thompson objected under GR 37, arguing the challenge was based on race or ethnicity. The trial court overruled the objection, and Thompson was ultimately convicted on all remaining counts.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the conviction and the trial court’s overruling of the GR 37 objection, holding that an objective observer could not view race or ethnicity as a factor in the State’s peremptory challenge of juror 27. However, the court extensively criticized the trial court’s inadequate reasoning, finding it failed to explain its analysis on the record and did not properly apply GR 37’s “could view” standard, which requires courts to deny peremptory challenges when an objective observer could view race as a factor regardless of the prosecutor’s actual intent.
The court provided a comprehensive history of discrimination against Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) persons in Washington State and the nation, including the Chinese Exclusion Act, restrictions on naturalization and land ownership, the “Gentlemen’s Agreement,” and Japanese American internment during World War II. This historical context is critical to understanding that GR 37 aims to prevent both conscious and unconscious racial bias in jury selection. The court emphasized that GR 37 was designed to be “overinclusive” in order to be effective and that trial courts must be “especially prudent” in denying peremptory challenges.
Key Takeaways
- GR 37 requires trial courts to deny peremptory challenges when an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor, regardless of whether discrimination was intentional.
- Trial courts must fully explain their reasoning on the record when ruling on GR 37 objections; conclusory statements are insufficient.
- The State’s stated reasons for challenging juror 27—his family connections to the Freedom Project, his knowledge of incarcerated persons, and his criticisms of the criminal justice system—were legitimate, non-racial justifications for the challenge.
- Courts must be aware of the historical exclusion of AAPI persons from civic participation when applying GR 37, including internment, immigration restrictions, and other discriminatory laws.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that GR 37 protects not only against purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection but also against unconscious or implicit bias. The court’s extensive historical analysis establishes that AAPI persons, like other marginalized communities, have experienced systematic exclusion from jury service and civic participation in Washington State. Courts must consider this history when evaluating peremptory challenges.
The opinion also reinforces procedural requirements for trial courts: they cannot simply accept a prosecutor’s explanation for a peremptory challenge without conducting a careful, record-based analysis of whether an objective observer could view the challenge as race-based. While the court ultimately upheld the peremptory challenge here, its strong language about the need for trial court scrutiny signals that future cases will require more rigorous compliance with GR 37’s procedures and substantive standards.