Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Washington Supreme Court hears arguments over alleged racialized framing in Al Hayek trial
Summary
At oral argument in Jumana Al Hayek v. Catherine Miles, petitioners' counsel argued that opening and closing statements constructed an "Us versus them" frame centering the plaintiff's Palestinian background and justified an evidentiary Henderson hearing; respondents' counsel said the totality of the record does not show race or ethnicity was a factor and the lower courts were correct. (Case submitted.)
The Washington State Supreme Court heard competing arguments over whether statements at trial injected racial or ethnic bias into the proceedings and whether that showing requires an evidentiary Henderson hearing.
Chris Hogue, attorney for petitioners Jumana Al Hayek and Nicholas Phillips, told the court that prior decisions require courts "to increase access to justice, to reduce racism and prejudice in our court systems," and that the trial here had been "biased" in its framing. Hogue argued the record shows an "Us versus them" pattern: opening statements and closing argument repeatedly highlighted Al Hayek's Palestinian upbringing and language, he said, creating at least a prima facie showing that racial or ethnic bias could have influenced the verdict and warranting further inquiry.
Responding, Howard…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
