The Washington Supreme Court recently issued an important decision interpreting the Washington GR 37 Rule, which governs race discrimination in jury selection. In State v. Hogan, No. 103824-1 (Wash. June 4, 2026), the court examined whether a prosecutor improperly used a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror who expressed concerns about racial bias in policing and the criminal justice system.
Although the court ultimately upheld the conviction, the decision provides valuable guidance about how Washington courts should analyze jury selection challenges under GR 37. As a result, attorneys and litigants should pay close attention to this case.
What Is the Washington GR 37 Rule?
The Washington GR 37 Rule was adopted to address racial bias in jury selection. The rule was designed to provide stronger protections than the federal standard established in Batson v. Kentucky.
Under GR 37, a court must deny a peremptory challenge if an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the decision to remove a juror. Importantly, the rule does not require proof of intentional discrimination.
Instead, the focus is on whether race could reasonably be viewed as influencing the challenge.
The Facts of State v. Hogan
Nigel Hogan, a Black defendant, was convicted of second-degree felony murder. During jury selection, the State exercised a peremptory challenge against Juror 40, a white prospective juror.
Juror 40 had expressed several views regarding race and the criminal justice system. Specifically, the juror stated that:
- Law enforcement has historically treated underrepresented groups unfairly.
- Racial bias exists in American society.
- Implicit bias can affect decision-making.
- The criminal justice system can be disproportionately harsh toward people of color and poor individuals.
The State argued that the juror’s views raised concerns. Consequently, the prosecutor exercised a peremptory strike.
Defense counsel objected and cited GR 37. However, counsel focused primarily on an argument involving perceived gender identity discrimination rather than race discrimination.
Preservation of a GR 37 Objection
Simply Saying “GR 37” Is Usually Enough
One significant aspect of the decision concerns how attorneys preserve a GR 37 objection.
The Supreme Court held that a lawyer generally preserves a GR 37 challenge by simply stating:
“GR 37.”
The rule intentionally sets a low threshold for objections. Therefore, attorneys do not need to provide a lengthy explanation before the court begins its analysis.
Why the Defense Still Lost the Preservation Argument
Even though defense counsel cited GR 37, the court found that counsel immediately shifted the discussion to gender identity rather than race or ethnicity.
As a result, the trial court never had an opportunity to evaluate a race-based GR 37 challenge. The Supreme Court concluded that the issue was not properly preserved.
Nevertheless, the court exercised its discretion to review the race-discrimination claim because allegations of racial bias in the justice system are particularly important.
Washington GR 37 Rule and Demeanor-Based Explanations
Another key issue involved the prosecutor’s explanation for striking Juror 40.
The prosecutor argued that the juror appeared uncomfortable, struggled to articulate thoughts, and seemed unlikely to effectively participate in deliberations.
However, GR 37 contains specific protections against subjective demeanor-based explanations.
Under GR 37(i), a party relying on a juror’s demeanor must provide notice and allow the behavior to be verified by the court and opposing counsel.
In Hogan, the State failed to follow those procedures.
Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecutor’s demeanor-based explanations could not be considered.
This portion of the opinion is particularly important because it reinforces that vague claims about body language, discomfort, or communication style cannot justify a peremptory challenge unless GR 37’s verification requirements are satisfied.
Expressing Distrust of Law Enforcement Is a Presumptively Invalid Reason
The Court’s Analysis
The court also addressed another significant provision of GR 37.
The rule identifies certain reasons for juror removal as “presumptively invalid” because they have historically been associated with racial discrimination in jury selection.
One of those reasons is:
- Expressing distrust of law enforcement.
- Believing law enforcement engages in racial profiling.
Juror 40 clearly expressed concerns about racial bias in policing and the criminal justice system. Consequently, the prosecutor’s reliance on those views triggered GR 37’s presumption of invalidity.
Why the Presumption Was Rebutted
Despite that presumption, the Supreme Court concluded that the totality of the circumstances did not support a finding of racial discrimination.
The court noted several important facts:
- The prosecutor asked similar race-related questions to numerous jurors.
- Multiple jurors expressed comparable views about racial bias.
- Some jurors with similar opinions were ultimately seated.
- The State struck both white and non-white jurors at comparable rates.
- The record did not demonstrate a pattern of race-based exclusion.
After reviewing the entire voir dire process, the court held that an objective observer could not view race as a factor in the strike against Juror 40.
Therefore, no GR 37 violation occurred.
Why State v. Hogan Matters
The Hogan decision provides important guidance for attorneys practicing in Washington.
First, it confirms that GR 37 objections are intentionally easy to raise.
Second, it reinforces strict limits on demeanor-based explanations for juror strikes.
Third, it clarifies that GR 37 protects all prospective jurors, regardless of race. The rule focuses on whether race influenced the challenge, not solely on the race of the juror who was removed.
Finally, the decision demonstrates that Washington courts continue to apply stronger protections against discriminatory jury selection than those available under federal law.
Key Takeaways from the Washington GR 37 Rule Decision
The Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Hogan strengthens guidance on how courts should evaluate race-related jury selection issues. Although the prosecutor’s demeanor-based explanations were rejected and one justification was deemed presumptively invalid, the court ultimately concluded that the overall record did not demonstrate racial discrimination.
As jury selection remains one of the most important stages of a criminal trial, attorneys should carefully understand the requirements of the Washington GR 37 Rule and ensure that objections are properly preserved and supported by the record.
Contact Blanford Law
If you are facing criminal charges or have questions about jury selection issues in Washington, contact Blanford Law today at ken@blanfordlaw.com or 253-720-9304 for guidance on your legal matter.
Additional Resources
State v. Bagby and Racial Bias in Washington Criminal Trials
The Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Bagby reinforced the judiciary’s commitment to addressing racial bias in criminal proceedings and emphasized that race-based misconduct may warrant review even without a trial objection.
https://blanfordlaw.com/bagby-case-racial-bias/
GR 14.1 and Unpublished Washington Court Opinions
Learn how Washington’s rules governing unpublished opinions affect legal research, precedent, and the use of appellate decisions in court filings.
https://blanfordlaw.com/gr-14-1-unpublished-opinions/
Juror Bias in Washington Criminal Cases
Juror bias can undermine a defendant’s right to a fair trial. This article explains how Washington courts evaluate claims of juror prejudice and impartiality.
https://blanfordlaw.com/juror-bias-washington/
Washington Court General Rules Explained
GR 37 is part of Washington’s broader General Rules framework. This overview explains how the General Rules govern court procedures throughout the state.
https://blanfordlaw.com/washington-court-general-rules/
Fair Cross-Section Jury Rights in Washington
Washington courts continue to examine whether jury pools fairly represent the community. This article discusses the constitutional fair cross-section requirement and the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Rivers.
https://blanfordlaw.com/fair-cross-section-jury-washington-rivers/