State v. Jones, 185 Wash. 2d 412

Martin Jones was tried for attempted first‑degree murder; 16 jurors were seated with 4 to be designated as alternates.
The court offered defendant a choice for designating alternates: either the last four seated or a random drawing; Jones chose a random draw.
Voir dire, juror numbering, explanation of the drawing procedure, and the announcement of the selected alternates all occurred on the record in open court.
During a brief recess in the middle of closing arguments, the trial court’s judicial assistant performed the physical random drawing off the record; the court later announced which four jurors were designated alternates.
Jones did not object at trial or during deliberations; after conviction he moved for a new trial arguing the drawing violated his public‑trial and presence rights.
The Court of Appeals reversed on public‑trial grounds; the Washington Supreme Court reviewed whether the drawing implicated the public‑trial right and whether Jones preserved a right‑to‑presence claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the random drawing by a judicial assistant during recess implicated the public‑trial right	Jones: the drawing occurred off the record and lacked public oversight, so it violated the public‑trial guarantee	State: nearly all related steps (voir dire, method, box, and announcement) occurred in open court; the drawing was a ministerial, nondiscretionary act described on the record	No public‑trial violation — neither the historical (experience) nor functional (logic) prongs were met
Whether Jones’s right to be present was violated and whether any error was preserved	Jones: he was not present for the drawing and the right to presence applies to critical trial stages	State: even assuming a violation, Jones waived the claim by failing to object until after verdict; timely objection during deliberations could have cured it	Waived for failure to timely object; court declines to reach the merits

Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (establishes experience and logic test for public‑trial analysis)
State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58 (explains experience and logic framework under Washington Constitution)
State v. Love, 183 Wn.2d 598 (applies public‑trial analysis; cited on de novo review standard)
State v. Irby, 170 Wn.2d 874 (recognizes defendant’s right to be present at critical stages)
State v. Williams, 96 Wn.2d 215 (failure to timely object can indicate waiver; remedies available if objection timely)