By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//March 7, 2014//
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Criminal
Criminal Procedure — juror bias
The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider statements made by the defendant’s jurors in subsequent proceedings concerning their deliberative process.
“The juror statements in this case concern only ‘intrajury influences on the verdict during the deliberative process,’ Ford, 840 F.2d at 465, and therefore fall squarely within the Rule 606(b)(1) prohibition. They are not admissible under existing law. Torres-Chavez acknowledges the legal status quo, but argues that we should create an additional, judge-made exception to the 606(b)(1) prohibition for statements concerning potential bias against a defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent, as the First Circuit has done for statements exhibiting racial or ethnic bias. See United States v. Villar, 586 F.3d 76, 84–88 (1st Cir. 2009). We decline to do so, and we thus join every other circuit court to consider the issue. See United States v. Kelley, 461 F.3d 817, 832 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Rutherford, 371 F.3d 634, 639–40 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Tran, 122 F.3d 670, 672–73 (8th Cir. 1997); United States v. Martinez-Moncivais, 14 F.3d 1030, 1036–37 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Voigt, 877 F.2d 1465, 1469 (10th Cir. 1989); United States v. Friedland, 660 F.2d 919, 927–28 (3d Cir. 1981).”
“Rule 606(b)(2) already lists the circumstances under which evidence of juror statements should be admitted. Expanding that list by carving out additional prudential exceptions vitiates the rule and threatens the values that undergird it. As the Supreme Court has cautioned, ‘full and frank discussion in the jury room, jurors’ willingness to return an unpopular verdict, and the community’s trust in a system that relies on the decisions of laypeople would all be undermined by a barrage of postverdict scrutiny of juror conduct.’ Tanner, 483 U.S. at 120–21. We are not prepared to say that no circumstances exist which would warrant a prudential exception, but we join our sister circuits in concluding that these circumstances do not.”
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, St. Eve, J., Kanne, J.