City of Seattle v. Erickson
No. 93408-8 (Slip Op.) (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The peremptory strike of the sole member of a cognizable racial group on a jury panel constitutes a prima facie showing of racial discrimination, requiring the striking party to provide a race-neutral explanation. A Batson challenge is timely if raised at the earliest reasonable time when the trial court still has the ability to remedy the error, even if after the jury is empaneled and the venire dismissed.
Facts:
- In June 2013, Officer Kevin Oshikawa Clay observed Matthew Erickson near Westlake Park in Seattle, Washington.
- Officer Clay testified that Erickson was walking down the sidewalk backward with a knife drawn, followed by several other individuals.
- Officers Clay and his partner followed Erickson into the Pacific Place shopping center, drew their weapons, and ordered Erickson to drop the knife.
- Erickson complied by dropping the knife but refused to follow the officers' instructions to lay facedown on the floor.
- After a prolonged physical struggle, officers subdued Erickson and took him into custody.
- Matthew Erickson, a black man, was charged in Seattle Municipal Court with unlawful use of a weapon and resisting arrest.
- After voir dire, the City of Seattle exercised a peremptory strike against Juror 5, who was identified as the only black juror on the jury panel.
Procedural Posture:
- Matthew Erickson was charged in Seattle Municipal Court (court of first instance) with unlawful use of a weapon and resisting arrest.
- After voir dire, the Seattle Municipal Court found that Matthew Erickson had not presented a prima facie case of racial discrimination regarding the City's peremptory strike and allowed the trial to move forward.
- Matthew Erickson was convicted on both counts in Seattle Municipal Court.
- Matthew Erickson (appellant) appealed the municipal court's decision to the King County Superior Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The King County Superior Court affirmed the municipal court's finding, not addressing the timeliness of the Batson motion.
- Matthew Erickson (appellant) then petitioned the Washington Court of Appeals for discretionary review, which was denied.
- Matthew Erickson's motion to modify the commissioner's ruling was similarly denied by the Washington Court of Appeals.
- Matthew Erickson (petitioner) then petitioned the Washington Supreme Court (highest court) for discretionary review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Did Matthew Erickson waive his right to a Batson challenge by objecting after the jury was empaneled and both the jury and venire were excused? 2. Did the trial court err in finding that Matthew Erickson did not make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination when the City struck Juror 5, the only black juror on the panel?
Opinions:
Majority - Owens, J.
Yes, Matthew Erickson's Batson challenge was timely because it was brought at the earliest reasonable time when the trial court still had the ability to remedy the error. The U.S. Supreme Court left it to state courts to establish Batson procedures, and Washington law requires objections to be raised when the trial court can correct the error. Even though the jury was sworn and the venire dismissed, the court could still declare a mistrial, as no testimony had been heard or evidence admitted. Yes, the municipal court erred in finding that Matthew Erickson did not make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination. The court adopted a bright-line rule, holding that the peremptory strike of a juror who is the only member of a cognizable racial group on a jury panel constitutes a prima facie showing of racial discrimination. The trial court improperly relied on the absence of a 'pattern' of discriminatory strikes and the presence of other 'people of color' on the jury, which is misguided because Batson protects against even a single discriminatory strike and is concerned with whether a juror was struck due to their race, not the overall diversity of the remaining jury. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, deeming this the appropriate remedy due to the passage of 2.5 years and the unavailability of the original trial judge, which would make a reliable Batson analysis on remand impossible.
Concurring - Stephens, J.
Justice Stephens concurred with the majority's decision to reverse and remand for a new trial but expressed reservations about the necessity and effectiveness of adopting the bright-line rule. She argued that Matthew Erickson had already made a prima facie showing under the traditional Batson framework, rendering the new rule unnecessary for this case. Justice Stephens also suggested that merely altering the first step of the Batson analysis would not significantly reduce racial bias in jury selection, as the core issue of proving intentional discrimination and critically evaluating ostensibly race-neutral justifications remains problematic. She advocated for broader solutions, such as those being explored through the court's administrative rule-making process (Proposed General Rule 37), which aims to move beyond Batson's intentional discrimination inquiry and addresses frequently proffered 'race-neutral' reasons that disproportionately affect minority groups.
Concurring - Yu, J.
Justice Yu concurred with the majority's efforts to address equal protection concerns and the adoption of a bright-line rule. However, she raised concerns that the solution does not go far enough to ensure no juror is removed solely due to race, gender, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs, arguing that the basic Batson framework is impractical and ineffective. Echoing Justice Gonzalez's concurrence in State v. Saintcalle, Justice Yu called for the complete abolishment of peremptory challenges. She contended that peremptory challenges contribute to the historical underrepresentation of minority groups on juries, impose litigation costs, result in less effective juries, and amplify resource disparities. Justice Yu proposed that counsel should be afforded ample time for questioning prospective jurors, with juror removal resting solely on 'for cause' challenges, assuming that all summoned members of the public are qualified unless proven otherwise.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens Batson protections in Washington by establishing a clear bright-line rule for the prima facie showing of discrimination, thereby reducing the burden on defendants to prove discriminatory intent in such circumstances. By mandating closer scrutiny of peremptory strikes when the sole member of a racial group is removed, the court aims to ensure a more equitable jury selection process. This ruling will likely lead to more Batson challenges proceeding to the second and third steps of the analysis, potentially fostering a reduction in discriminatory jury selection practices, though some justices suggest more fundamental changes are necessary to fully eradicate systemic bias.
