Case Commentaries
| Author | Rosemary Pattenden |
| Published date | 01 April 2010 |
| Date | 01 April 2010 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1350/ijep.2010.14.2.350 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
CASE COMMENTARIES
CASE COMMENTARIES
CASE COMMENTARIES
Sanctity of jury deliberations—United States
The facts of United States vVillar 586 F3d 76 (2009) are reminiscent of those of Rv
Mirza [2004] UKHL 2 where a majority of the House of Lords held that the Court of
Appeal was prevented by a common law jury secrecy rule from investigating a
plausible post-verdict juror allegation that other jurors had expressed racial bias
during deliberations that culminated in the appellant’s conviction. Controver-
sially, in Mirza, the jury secrecy rule was held to be consistent with the fair trial
right guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The
US Court of Appeals, on the other hand, in Villar, held that the US Constitution
might require such a complaint to be investigated.
The appellant, a Hispanic man, was convicted of bank robbery. Some hours after
his conviction, defence counsel received an email from a juror which disclosed
that during the deliberations another juror had said, ‘I guess we’re profiling but
they cause all the trouble’. This was taken to indicate racial bias. The defence
sought an inquiry into the validity of the verdict. The district court held that Rule
606(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibited the court from investigating
anything beyond the authenticity of the email. Rule 606 deals with the compe-
tency of jurors as witnesses.
Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror
may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the
course of the jury’s deliberations or to the effect of anything upon
that or any other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing the juror to
assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the
juror’s mental processes in connection therewith. But a juror may
testify about (1) whether extraneous prejudicial information was
improperly brought to the jury’s attention, (2) whether any outside
influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror, or (3)
whether there was a mistake in entering the verdict into the verdict
form. A juror’s affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror may
doi:10.1350/ijep.2010.14.2.350
167 (2010) 14 E&P 167–180 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF
To continue reading
Request your trial