State v. Rivers
| Docket Number | 100922-4 |
| Decision Date | 03 August 2023 |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. PAUL RIVERS, Petitioner. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
1
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v.
PAUL RIVERS, Petitioner.
No. 100922-4
Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc
August 3, 2023
STEPHENS, J.
-The state and federal constitutions guarantee the right to trial by an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community. Jury diversity is central to a fair and democratic system of justice, as diverse juries bring broader perspectives that foster rich deliberations and lead to better informed decisions. Paul Rivers, a Black man, was convicted on two criminal charges in King County by a jury drawn from a panel that lacked any Black potential jurors. Rivers argues this venire, as well as certain aspects of the King County jury selection system that produced this venire, violated his state and federal fair cross section rights.
Though Rivers argues his convictions must be reversed under existing United States Supreme Court precedent, he urges that article I, sections 21 and 22 of the Washington Constitution provide greater protection of the fair cross section guaranty
than does the Sixth Amendment to the federal constitution. Rivers, supported by amici,[1] proposes a new test under state law in which a defendant establishes a per se constitutional violation by showing a comparative disparity level of 20 percent or more in a single jury venire.[2] Alternatively, if the court continues to evaluate disparities across all jury venires rather than by considering only the defendant's jury panel, Rivers proposes to eliminate the requirement of showing a systematic cause for the disparity. See Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979) (violation of Sixth Amendment's fair cross section guaranty requires showing that underrepresentation of a distinctive group "is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process").
No one in this case disputes that jury diversity is lacking in Washington and that more can and must be done to promote juror diversity statewide. This court and others have an administrative responsibility to address the policy question of how to facilitate juror participation and achieve greater jury diversity across Washington. However, the case before us invokes our appellate jurisdiction, not our
administrative function, and the legal question presented is whether Rivers has established a violation of his fair cross section rights under either the federal or state constitution. Because Rivers has not shown that the Washington Constitution requires the heightened test he proposes for assessing fair cross section claims, we analyze his claim using the existing Sixth Amendment framework, which this court has applied in prior cases. See Duren, 439 U.S. at 364; see also In re Pers. Restraint of Yates, 177 Wn.2d 1, 20, 296 P.3d 872 (2013). Applying that framework, we conclude that Rivers's venire and King County's jury selection system satisfy constitutional minimums.
Because Rivers is not entitled to a new trial based on his fair cross section claim, we address his additional challenge to the trial court's admission of expert testimony regarding the correlation between strangulation and memory loss as well as the trial court's decision not to answer a written question from the jury regarding the mens rea of assault by suffocation. We affirm on each claim because the trial court acted within its discretion in both instances. We remand for resentencing, however, because Rivers is entitled to the benefit of RCW 9.94A.647, which no longer allows a persistent offender life sentence based on prior second-degree robbery convictions.
BACKGROUND ON KING COUNTY JURY SELECTION AND RACE DEMOGRAPHICS
As Rivers's principal challenge is to the composition of his jury venire, some background is necessary regarding the jury summons process in King County and, more generally, race demographic data for the county.
A. Jury Summons Procedures in King County
Across Washington, courts randomly select prospective jurors from master jury lists. RCW 2.36.010(12). Master jury lists are compiled from jury source lists, which contain names and addresses of registered voters, licensed drivers, and identicard holders who reside in a particular county. RCW 2.36.010(10); see also RCW 2.36.054; GR 18(c). The court clerk notifies individuals randomly selected for jury service by issuing a summons. RCW 2.36.095. Low juror response rates are typical in many counties, including King County. See, e.g., PETER A. COLLINS &BROOKE MILLER GIALOPSOS, AN EXPLORATION OF BARRIERS TO RESPONDING TO JURY SUMMONS: TECHNICAL REPORT TO THE WASHINGTON STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 8-9 (June 24, 2021), https://www.courts.wa.gov/subsite/mjc/docs/2021_Jury_Study_Final_Report.pdf (over a four-month period in 2021, King County reached only a 10 percent response rate to jury summonses). Those who do respond to a jury summons can request excusal on the basis of undue hardship, for example, due to work obligations or a medical condition. See RCW 2.36.100(1). Otherwise, summoned jurors generally
complete a questionnaire before appearing in court, which helps the court determine eligibility and fitness to serve. See, e.g., How a Jury Is Chosen, SEATTLE MUN. CT. https://www.seattle.gov/courts/jury/reporting-for-jury-duty/how-a-jury-is-chosen. Eligible jurors who appear for service form the venire panel, at which point the attorneys conduct voir dire and select veniremembers to serve on the petit jury and to decide the case. See, e.g., id.
B. Seattle and Kent Jury Assignment Areas
King County has two full-service superior courthouses: the King County Courthouse in Seattle and the Norm Maleng Regional Justice Center in Kent. State v. Lanciloti, 165 Wn.2d 661, 664, 201 P.3d 323 (2009). Until 2007, King County summoned prospective jurors to either courthouse randomly regardless of proximity. Id. Superior Court judges began to observe that jurors were more likely to appear for jury service when summoned to the courthouse closest to their home. Id. One judge compiled detailed demographic data that tended to show "distance to the courthouse had a disproportionate impact on poor and minority jurors, making juries overall less representative of King County." Id.
In response to requests from King County Superior Court judges, the legislature amended the jury summons statutes to permit counties with two or more courthouses to create multiple jury districts within the county. Id.; see also LAWS OF 2005, ch. 199, codified as RCW 2.36.055. The express purpose of this legislative
amendment was to "lessen the burdens borne by jurors fulfilling their civic duties by providing a mechanism that narrows the geographic area from which the jurors are drawn while maintaining a random and proportionate jury pool." LAWS OF 2005, ch. 199, § 1. In 2007, the King County Superior Court promulgated Local General Rule (LGR) 18, which creates separate geographic jury assignment areas for Seattle and Kent. LGR 18 divides the jury source list so that prospective jurors are summoned to the courthouse closest to their residence, based on zip code. LGR 18(1). The "Seattle Case Assignment Area" includes roughly all of the city of Seattle and north of Interstate 90; the "Kent Case Assignment Area" encompasses everything else sprawling south of Seattle. Lanciloti, 165 Wn.2d at 665; see also Local Civil Rule (LCR) 82(e)(3).
C. King County's Racially Disparate Neighborhood Demographics
The United States has a shameful history of segregating neighborhoods through the use of racially restrictive covenants. See In re That Portion of Lots 1 &2, 199 Wn.2d 389, 395-96, 506 P.3d 1230 (2022) (tracing the history of racial covenants across the country). Seattle is no exception.
Seattle's first known racially restrictive covenant was written in 1924. Catherine Silva, Racial Restrictive Covenants History: Enforcing Neighborhood Segregation in Seattle, SEATTLE CIV. RTS. &LABOR HIST. PROJECT, https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants_report.htm [https://perma.cc/NY93-3G34].
Similar covenants quickly proliferated throughout the city, spurred in large part by land developers and real estate companies. Id. Many neighborhoods used racially restrictive covenants and deeds to exclude non-White and Jewish families. Id. These restrictions "played a major role in dictating municipal demographics" throughout the first half of the twentieth century. Id. As a result, Black residents had few housing options and were heavily concentrated in Seattle's Central District and International District. Id.
Redlining also contributed to racial segregation in Seattle. "Redlining" is "[c]redit discrimination . . . by an institution that refuses to provide loans or insurance on properties in areas that are considered to be poor financial risks or to the people who live in those areas." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1531 (11th ed. 2019). Lenders relied on maps drawn to indicate the "best" Seattle area neighborhoods in which banks should invest; banks generally refused to lend money for properties in "declining" and "hazardous" neighborhoods. See HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION SECURITY MAP AND AREA DESCRIPTIONS (January 10, 1936), https://cdm16118.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16118coll2/id/379 [https://perma.cc/CTP4-PRL6]; see also Bruce Mitchell &Juan Franco, HOLC "Redlining" Maps: The Persistent Structure of Segregation and Economic Inequality, NAT'L CMTY. REINVESTMENT COAL. (Mar. 20, 2018), https://ncrc.org/holc/ [https://perma.cc/JWQ7-MZL5].
Redlining "essentially divided cities according to their racial demographics in order to determine the economic desirability of certain neighborhoods." Silva, supra. A 1976 Seattle task force reported that banks assigned "higher risks to neighborhoods whose residents differ in race," which "penalize[d] neighborhoods because of the diversity of their residents or because of concentrations of racial and...
To continue reading
Request your trial