444 P.3d 1172
Wash.2019Background
- Tomas Berhe, an African-American defendant, was convicted of first-degree murder and assault by a jury that included a single African-American juror (juror 6).
- After the verdict, juror 6 contacted defense counsel and the court, declaring she had been a reluctant holdout and felt ridiculed and singled out during deliberations—attributing differential treatment at least in part to her race.
- Defense filed a motion for a new trial alleging juror misconduct (including racial bias) and requested an evidentiary hearing; the court allowed juror contact but admonished counsel against initiating it.
- The prosecution obtained written declarations from several jurors (without court-supervised, on-the-record questioning) using two narrowly framed, prosecutor-drafted questions; those jurors denied racial bias.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing, relying on the written declarations; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court granted review limited to the juror-bias issue.
- The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded, holding the court abused its discretion by failing to oversee juror questioning and by not conducting sufficient on-the-record inquiry before denying an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying a new-trial evidentiary hearing on juror racial-bias allegations | Berhe: juror 6’s affidavit and surrounding facts raise at least a prima facie showing of racial bias (explicit or implicit) warranting a supervised evidentiary hearing | State: juror 6’s claims are subjective, conclusory, and refuted by other jurors’ declarations; no hearing necessary | Court: Abuse of discretion — court failed to supervise juror inquiry and did not conduct sufficient on-the-record inquiry; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether the no-impeachment rule bars inquiry into alleged racial bias during deliberations | Berhe: no-impeachment rule yields where juror racial bias may have infected the verdict | State: protect jury secrecy; rely on written declarations to avoid waiver of secrecy | Court: no-impeachment rule yields for juror racial bias claims; court must inquire when prima facie showing exists |
| Standard to assess implicit racial bias claims at prima facie stage | Berhe: juror 6’s examples of differential treatment permit inference that race could be a factor | State: alternative race-neutral explanations plausible; juror 6’s statements are insufficiently particularized | Court: apply an objective-observer test aware of implicit bias; if evidence taken as true permits inference race could be a factor, hold evidentiary hearing; further on-the-record inquiry required when equivocal |
| Proper procedure for investigating post-verdict juror-bias allegations | Berhe: court supervision and on-the-record questioning required to avoid taint and preserve evidence | State: written juror declarations suffice; minimize intrusion on juror privacy | Court: court must control inquiries, prohibit unsupervised counsel contact, and conduct tailored, on-the-record follow-up before ruling on need for an evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (racial prejudice in criminal process undermines fundamental rights)
- Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880) (race-based exclusion from jury violates Equal Protection)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits purposeful racial discrimination in peremptory challenges)
- Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005) (defines prima facie showing standard permitting inference of discrimination)
- Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. (2014) (no-impeachment rule has exceptions for juror bias that abridge trial rights)
- Peha‑Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. (2017) (when a juror makes a clear statement showing reliance on racial stereotypes or animus, the no-impeachment rule must give way)
- State v. Jackson, 75 Wn. App. 537 (1994) (where juror statements create clear inference of racial bias, trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing)
- State v. Saintcalle, 178 Wn.2d 34 (2013) (recognition that implicit racial bias can affect jury fairness and is difficult to detect)