Juror’s Racial Bias Enough to Impeach Verdict and Set New Trial

Revelations of a juror’s racial bias during deliberation opens up the jury verdict to impeachment and allows a court to considers the statement’s in whether to grant a new trial.

Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ___ (2017).

The Supreme Court held that statements made by a juror during a trial that espouses animus or a bias based on race may violate a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury. In the case, the defendant was convicted of several sex crimes involving minors. After the trial, the defense counsel spoke to jurors about the case and during the conversation, two jurors came forward to alert the defense counsel that one juror made racially disparaging remarks about the defendant to garner support for the conviction verdict. After this discovery, the counsel for the defendant moved for a new trial. The trial court, however, denied the motion under the Colorado rule modeled after FRE 606(b), which prohibits the impeachment of a jury verdict based on statements made by a juror.

The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the decision of the Colorado courts, noting the historical racial bias “implicates unique historical constitutional, and institutional concerns.” Moreover, the court stated “Racial bias is distinct in a pragmatic sense,” while there are safeguards such voir dire or juror observation during the trial, these mechanisms “may be compromised, or….prove insufficient.”

When there is a case where a juror makes a “clear statement that indicates…racial stereotypes or animus [used] to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule gives way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror’s statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.” To show that a racially biased statement impeded a fair trial, there must be a showing that one or more jurors made overtly biased statements that raise doubt on the fairness of the jury deliberations and verdict. The statement must also “show that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in the juror’s vote to convict.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-606_886b.pdf

Jury’s Access to Testimonial Videos During Deliberation Not Allowed

Testimonial videos shown in court are not allowed to be reviewed by jurors during deliberation because they are “testimonial in nature” and may disadvantage the opposing party

State v. Cruz, 2016 UT App 234

The Utah Court of Appeals found that video testimonial of a child should not have been reviewed by jurors during deliberation. Under rule 17 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure,” [T]he jury may take with them the instructions of the court and all exhibits which have been received as evidence, except exhibits that should not, in the opinion of the court, be in the possession of the jury, such as exhibits of unusual size, weapons or contraband.”  The Supreme Court, however, has limited this rule by stating that the rule “indicates that exhibits which are testimonial in nature should not be given to the jury during its deliberation” because it would give an undue advantage to the party that presented the testimony.

In this case, two videos of a child responding to investigators at a Child Justice Center regarding alleged abuses were presented to the court as exhibits in the case. The exhibits, however, included victim testimony that could be replayed numerous times by a jury member, which is unlike testimony only heard in court. Its use during deliberation, as the Court of Appeals indicated, violates rule 17 and the Supreme Court’s precedent regarding the Jury’s use of testimonial evidence or exhibits during deliberation.

The court cautioned, however, that this ruling does not limit all videos from being used by a jury during deliberation, just those that are testimonial in nature.

https://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/State%20v.%20Cruz20161201.pdf