Warger v. Shauers, USSC No. 13-517, 2014 WL 6885952 (December 9, 2014), affirmingWarger v. Shauers, 721 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2013); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)Resolving an issue that had split some federal circuit courts, the Supreme Court unanimously holds that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) precludes a party seeking a new trial from using one juror’s affidavit or testimony about what another juror said in deliberations to demonstrate the other juror was dishonest during voir dire.In this civil case arising from a motor vehicle accident, Warger moved for a new trial after learning from one juror that another juror, named Whipple, had spoken during deliberations about a car accident her daughter had caused and said that “if her daughter had been sued, it would have ruined her life.” (Slip op. at 2).

The “tattletale juror” signed an affidavit explaining the “saboteur juror’s” statements during deliberations, and Warger’s counsel brought a post-trial motion for a new trial, relying on the affidavit. The district court ruled that the affidavit was barred from introduction into evidence by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which states:During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters.At the Supreme Court, Warger argued that the “extraneous information” exception applied to the “tattletale juror’s” affidavit.

In order to protect the finality and integrity of verdicts and to guard against the harassment of jurors, a party seeking to invalidate a verdict may not rely upon evidence of "a juror's mental process in connection with the verdict." United States v. Cheek, 94 F.3d 136, 143 (4th Cir. 1996); see Fed. R. Evid. 606(b); Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 121 (1987). The Federal Rules of Evidence impose strict limits on the type of juror testimony that may be used to invalidate a verdict.

Rule 606(b) precludes a party from using a juror’s affidavit about deliberations to obtain a new trial. Warger v. Shauers, 135 S.Ct. 521 (2014).In a rare evidentiary ruling, the Supreme Court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) precludes a party seeking a new trial from using one juror’s affidavit of what another juror said in deliberations to demonstrate the other juror’s dishonesty during voir dire. The case arose from a collision between Warger’s motorcycle and Shauers’ truck.

Plaintiff's lawyer got the juror to sign an affidavit describing what Whipple said during deliberations, arguing that Whipple had lied about her impartiality during jury selection, denying plaintiff a fair trial. However, under Federal Rules of Evidence 606(b), certain juror testimony regarding what occurred in a jury room is inadmissible “[d]uring an inquiry into the validity of a verdict.” This rule disallows plaintiff from seeking a new trial, a unanimous Supreme Court says.

After getting an affidavit, the motorcyclist's attorney moved for a new trial based on juror dishonesty during voir dire. That was denied.Here is the issue: FRE 606(b) will not allow "inquiry into the validity of the verdict" coming from jury deliberations. Those are sacrosanct.

The district court found that the two jurors had lied during voir dire in failing to reveal past experiences with Native Americans and their preconceptions that Native Americans get drunk and violent. The panel decided Mr. Benally's use of juror testimony to challenge the validity of the verdict violated Fed. R. Evid. 606(b). Briscoe views Benally's claim as inquiring into the legitimacy of pre-trial procedures and the constitutionality of the overall proceedings.

But, with very limited exceptions, statements made by a juror after she has been discharged cannot be used as evidence to try to upset the verdict.Federal Rule of Evidence 606 says that courts considering whether to overturn a jury verdict may not hear live testimony from a juror, nor receive a juror’s affidavit or any other evidence of a juror’s statements, on anything that was said or done during jury deliberations. There are a few exceptions, such as when a juror testifies that information that was not in evidence was given to the jury (like Henry Fonda pulling out the second knife in 12 Angry Men) or that there has been some sort of improper outside influence used against a juror (like the mob’s threat to kill Demi Moore’s son in The Juror).

They can serve as a gut check for even the most seasoned trial lawyer, and they can provide helpful critiques for younger lawyCoers developing their trial presentation skills. But, with very limited exceptions, statements made by a juror after she has been discharged cannot be used as evidence to try to upset the verdict.Federal Rule of Evidence 606 says that courts considering whether to overturn a jury verdict may not hear live testimony from a juror, nor receive a juror’s affidavit or any other evidence of a juror’s statements, on anything that was said or done during jury deliberations. There are a few exceptions, such as when a juror testifies that information that was not in evidence was given to the jury (like Henry Fonda pulling out the second knife in 12 Angry Men) or that there has been some sort of improper outside influence used against a juror (like the mob’s threat to kill Demi Moore’s son in The Juror).

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.