Statements Made by Jurors Regarding Torres-Chavez’S Failure to Testify at Trial in a Subsequent Venire Questioning Could not be Introduced to Attack the Torres-Chavez’S Conviction

United States v. Torres-Chavez, No. 13-1340. Torres-Chavez was convicted following a jury trial of drug conspiracy. He challenged the district court’s admission of testimony of his prior bad acts and argued the district court erred by determining jurors’ statements in an unrelated case did not prove they were biased. As to the first issue, the Court of Appeals rejected his argument that the government had not proven the prior bad acts by a preponderance of the evidence based on the testimony of the eyewitness which is enough proof. As to the second issue, several jurors who served on Torres-Chavez’s jury were placed in a venire in another trial shortly after they found Torres-Chavez guilty. The jurors stated they might have had some problems with the fact that Torres-Chavez did not testify. Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) generally prohibits use of juror statements during an inquiry into the validity of a verdict. The rule prohibits any evidence regarding the effects of something on the jurors’ mental processes. Because the statements in this case concerned only “intrajury influences on the verdict during the deliberative process” they were prohibited by Rule 606(b)(1).