## Facts

- A Seattle police officer observed Matthew Alex Erickson near Westlake Park walking backward with a knife drawn, followed by several individuals.
- Officers followed Erickson into a shopping center, drew weapons, ordered him to drop the knife, and he complied.
- Erickson refused commands to lie facedown; after a prolonged struggle, officers restrained and arrested him.
- The City charged Erickson in Seattle Municipal Court with unlawful use of a weapon and resisting arrest.
- During voir dire, the venire included a single Black prospective juror; the City used a peremptory challenge to strike him.
- After the jury was sworn and the venire dismissed, but before testimony, Erickson objected that the strike was racially motivated under Batson.
- The municipal court denied the Batson objection at step one, finding no prima facie showing of discrimination, citing lack of a pattern and the presence of other nonwhite jurors.
- Erickson was convicted; the King County Superior Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a Batson objection is timely when raised after the jury is sworn and the venire dismissed, but before testimony begins.
2. Whether striking the only member of a cognizable racial group from the venire establishes a prima facie showing of racial discrimination under Batson as applied in Washington.
3. Whether Washington’s Batson step-one framework should be modified to better prevent racial discrimination in jury selection.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed Erickson’s convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held Erickson’s Batson objection was timely because it was made before testimony and while remedies (including mistrial) remained available.
- The court held the lower courts misapplied Batson step one by relying on the absence of a pattern and the presence of other nonwhite jurors.
- The court adopted a bright-line rule: a peremptory strike removing the only member of a cognizable racial group constitutes a prima facie showing, requiring the trial court to conduct the full Batson analysis (steps two and three).

## Legal Principles

- A Batson claim is not necessarily waived when raised after empanelment if asserted before testimony and while the trial court can still provide a remedy.
- Batson step one does not require a pattern of strikes; a single strike may support an inference of discriminatory purpose.
- The presence of other nonwhite jurors does not defeat a prima facie showing when the challenged strike removes the only juror from a cognizable racial group.
- Under Washington law, striking the sole member of a cognizable racial group automatically satisfies Batson’s prima facie requirement and obligates the trial court to demand a race-neutral explanation and determine whether purposeful discrimination occurred.

## Conclusion

Washington’s high court required trial courts to proceed through the full Batson inquiry when a peremptory strike removes the only juror from a cognizable racial group, held Erickson’s objection timely, found reversible error in stopping at step one, and ordered a new trial.


City of Seattle v. Erickson, 188 Wash. 2d 721, 398 P.3d 1124 (Wash. 2017)