•  
  •  
 

Keywords

impartial jury, federal rule of evidence, federal rule of evidence 606, 606, no impeachment rule, juror bias

Abstract

In the United States, a criminal defendant is entitled to “a fair trial but not a perfect one, for there are no perfect trials.” However, defendants are also guaranteed the right to an impartial jury. While perfection within a jury is “an untenable goal,” a system that allows for juror bias during deliberations to go undetected threatens a defendant’s most crucial constitutional rights. Thus, when juror bias threatens to interfere with a defendant’s rights to a fair trial and impartial jury, there is a prevalent need for the judicial system to step in and mitigate the effects of juror bias. While there are pre-trial systems in place designed to protect against juror bias, there is a significant lack of protection for post-trial allegations of juror bias. Federal Rule of Evidence 606 (otherwise known as the no impeachment rule) limits investigation into the validity of a jury’s verdict by generally prohibiting jurors from testifying about statements or incidents occurring during deliberations. The rule offers limited exceptions, which permit juror testimony about extraneous prejudicial information improperly shown to the jury, improper outside influence, and mistakes made on the verdict form. However, these exceptions do not account for statements or incidents indicating explicit juror bias or prejudice that had an effect on the jury’s verdict. When the Supreme Court of the United States decided Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado in 2017, it created an additional exception that allows courts to consider evidence of juror statements of racial animus made during deliberations that had an effect on the jury’s decision. This exception covers only race-based statements, leaving the possibility for other forms of juror bias to invade the jury room and leave defendants defenseless against violations of their constitutional rights to a fair trial and impartial jury. This article addresses the current state of the no-impeachment rule and emphasizes the disconnect between the purported policies behind the rule and its realities. It also recommends a cohesive test to be adopted by states to ensure the constitutional rights of criminal defendants are not undermined by the desire to maintain jury secrecy. Part II will outline the legislative history behind Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) and how it has led to the current state of the no-impeachment rule. Part III will address the gaps in the current system and provide suggestions for states to address these issues. Specifically, this Part will highlight how the existing procedures for addressing juror bias are insufficient in light of the gravity of defendants’ rights that are at stake and acknowledge the judicial system’s history in addressing racial, gender, and sexual orientation bias in other areas of the court system. Further, this Part will argue that post-verdict inquiry for allegations of juror bias fits squarely within the current evidentiary practices of the court system and will propose a general framework and procedures for states in addressing allegations of juror bias.

Share

COinS