## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

N O

. P D

- 0 8 0 3

- 1 1

T H O M A S M C Q U A R R I E

, A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N A P P E L L A N T ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E T H I R T E E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

G O N Z A L E S C O U N T Y

C O C H R A N

, J

. , f

i l e d a d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h K E L L E R

, P

. J

. , a n d P R IC E a n d

W O M A C K

, J J

. , j o i n e d

.

O P I N I O N

I r e s p e c t f

u l l y d i s s e n t

. T h e s t a t e m e n t s i n t h e j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s o f

f e r e d i n t h i s c a s e m a y

c o n s t i t u t e “ e x t r a n e o u s p r e j u d i c i a l i n f

o r m a t i o n ” u n d e r F e d e r a l R u l e 6 0 6 ( b )

, b u t t h e T e x a s

S u p r e m e C o u r t d e l i b e r a t e l y d i d n o t a d o p t t h a t e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t

j u r o r s i m p e a c h i n g t h e i r o w n v e r d i c t i n T e x a s R u l e o f E v i d e n c e 6 0 6 ( b )

. W e d o n o t h a v e t h e

a u t h o r i t y t o r e a d t h a t e x c e p t i o n i n t o t h e r u l e b y o u r s e l v e s

.

H i s t o r i c a l l y

, o n c e a n E n g l i s h t r i a l w a s o v e r

, t h e a d v o c a t e s c o m m e n c e d t o “ t r y t h eMcQua rrie D issent Page 2

j u r y

, ” b y h a r a s s i n g a n d c a j o l i n g t h e m i n t o a d m i t t i n g t h a t t h e y o r a n o t h e r j u r o r h a d

m i s b e h a v e d i n s o m e r e s p e c t d u r i n g t h e t r i a l

. T h i s p r a c t i c e c a m e t o a n a b r u p t e n d w h e n L o r d

M a n s f i e l d d e c l a r e d

, i n 1 7 8 5

, t h a t E n g l i s h c o u r t s c o u l d n o t c o n s i d e r j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s o r

t e s t i m o n y a t t e s t i n g t o t h e i r o w n m i s c o n d u c t d u r i n g j u r y d e l i b e r a t i o n s

. L o r d M a n s f i e l d ’ s 1

r u l e

, t h a t “

j u r o r s m a y n o t i m p e a c h t h e i r v e r d i c t

, ” f o u n d w i d e s p r e a d a c c e p t a n c e i n t h e U n i t e d 2

S t a t e s a s w e l l

. 3

E a r l y T e x a s d e c i s i o n s f o l l o w e d L o r d M a n s f

i e l d ’ s p r o h i b i t o r y r u l e r e l i g i o u s l y

, b u t

, 4

i n 1 9 0 5

, t h e T e x a s L e g i s l a t u r e a d o p t e d a n e x c e p t i o n t o t h a t r u l e

, g i v i n g t r i a l c o u r t s d i s c r e t i o n

t o r e c e i v e j u r o r t e s t i m o n y a b o u t t h e i r m i s c o n d u c t d u r i n g d e l i b e r a t i o n s

. G i v e n t h i s u n f e t t e r e d 5

d i s c r e t i o n

, t h e p e n d u l u m b e g a n t o s w i n g

, a n d T e x a s c o u r t s s o o n a l l o w e d “ a f a r w i d e r s c o p e

o f i n q u i r y i n t o t h e j u r y ’ s d e l i b e r a t i o n s t h a n a n y o t h e r s t a t e

. ” F r e q u e n t l y

, t h e j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t 6

Vaise v. De laval , 99 Eng . Rep. 944 (K.B . 1785). 1

Id. 2

See 8 J O H N W I G M O R E

, E V I D E N C E § 2352 (McNa ug hton rev. 1961). 3

See St. Louis S.W

. Ry. Co. v. Ric ketts , 70 S.W . 315, 317 (Tex. 1902) (stating that court 4

had “unif ormly denied the c ompetency ” of juror aff idavits or testimony

to attack the jur

y ’s

verdic t based on c laims of “irre g ularities and improprie ties of diffe rent kinds”; re jecting juror

aff idavits that said forema

n told deliberating jurors that he ha d lived near depot that was subjec t

of litiga tion and that it was not heate d or lit, thus plainti ffs’ te stimony was true and def

endant’ s

witnesses’ c onflicting testimony was fa lse).

See G olden Eagle Arc hery, I nc. v. J ackson , 24 S.W .3d 362, 367 (Tex. 2000) (discussing 5

the history

of T E X

. R. E V I D . 606(b))

.

1 C. M C C O R M I C K & R. RA Y

, T E X A S L A W O F E V I D E N C E § 397, at 338 n.73 (2d e d. 1956). 6McQua rrie D issent Page 3

w a s b e i n g r e v e r s e d f

o r “ t r i v i a l m i s c o n d u c t

. ” S u r e e n o u g h

, t h e p e n d u l u m s w u n g b a c k

. I n 7

1 9 8 3

, t h e T e x a s S u p r e m e C o u r t a d o p t e d R u l e 6 0 6 ( b )

, w h i c h g e n e r a l l y b a r s p o s t

- v e r d i c t j u r o r

a f f i d a v i t s o r t e s t i m o n y t o a t t a c k t h e v a l i d i t y o f i t s v e r d i c t

. I n 1 9 9 8

, w h e n t h e c i v i l a n d

c r i m i n a l e v i d e n t i a r y r u l e s w e r e m e r g e d

, R u l e 6 0 6 ( b )

, a s p r o m u l g a t e d b y t h e T e x a s S u p r e m e

C o u r t

, b e c a m e a p p l i c a b l e t o c r i m i n a l c a s e s a s w e l l a s c i v i l c a s e s

. O u r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n d

a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h a t r u l e s h o u l d f o l l o w t h a t o f o u r s t a t e s u p r e m e c o u r t

.

R u l e 6 0 6 ( b ) s e r v e s s e v e r a l i m p o r t a n t p u b l i c p o l i c y i n t e r e s t s

. F i r s t

, a s t h e U n i t e d

S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s s t a t e d

, i t p r o t e c t s j u r o r s f r o m h a r a s s m e n t :

[ L ] e t i t o n c e b e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t v e r d i c t s s o l e m n l y m a d e a n d p u b l i c l y r e t u r n e d

i n t o c o u r t c a n b e a t t a c k e d a n d s e t a s i d e o n t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h o s e w h o t o o k

p a r t i n t h e i r p u b l i c a t i o n

, a n d a l l v e r d i c t s c o u l d b e

, a n d m a n y w o u l d b e

, f o l l o w e d b y a n i n q u i r y i n t h e h o p e o f d i s c o v e r i n g s o m e t h i n g t h a t m i g h t

i n v a l i d a t e t h e f

i n d i n g

. J u r o r s w o u l d b e h a r a s s e d a n d b e s e t b y t h e d e f e a t e d

p a r t y i n a n e f

f o r t t o s e c u r e f

r o m t h e m e v i d e n c e o f f

a c t s w h i c h m i g h t e s t a b l i s h

m i s c o n d u c t s u f

f i c i e n t t o s e t a s i d e a v e r d i c t

. 8

S e c o n d

, i t p r o t e c t s t h e s a n c t i t y o f t h e j u r y d e l i b e r a t i o n r o o m a n d t h e r e b y e n c o u r a g e s t h e

j u r o r s t o e n g a g e i n f

u l l a n d f r a n k d i s c u s s i o n s

. J u r o r s w o u l d b e h e s i t a n t t o e x p r e s s t h e i r 9

o p i n i o n s f

r e e l y i f t h e y t h o u g h t t h a t t h e i r s t a t e m e n t s w o u l d l a t e r b e h e l d u p f o r p u b l i c

See id. § 394, at 332. 7

McD onald v. Pless , 238 U.S. 264, 267 (1915). 8

Id. at 267-68 (disc ussing ne ed to pre vent “what was intended to be private de liberation” 9

from being made subjec t to public scrutiny “to the destruc tion of all fra nkness and f

ree dom of

discussion”).McQua rrie D issent Page 4

s c r u t i n y

. T h i r d

, a l l o w i n g j u r o r s t o a t t a c k t h e i r o w n v e r d i c t s w o u l d u n d e r m i n e t h e f i n a l i t y 1 0

o f j u d g m e n t s

. J u d g e s “ w o u l d b e c o m e P e n e l o p e s

, f o r e v e r e n g a g e d i n u n r a v e l i n g t h e w e b s 1 1

t h e y w o v e

. ” F o u r t h

, a l l o w i n g j u r o r s t o a t t a c k t h e i n t e g r i t y o f t h e i r v e r d i c t s w o u l d i n v i t e

1 2

t a m p e r i n g w i t h t h e p r o c e s s

. F o r e x a m p l e

, a j u r o r w h o r e l u c t a n t l y j o i n e d a v e r d i c t m a y b e 1 3

s y m p a t h e t i c t o l a t e r o v e r t u r e s b y t h e l o s i n g p a r t y t o v i e w h i s e a r l i e r c o n s e n t a s b e i n g b a s e d

u p o n i m p e r m i s s i b l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

. 1 4

A t b o t t o m

, t h e b e s t j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r R u l e 6 0 6 ( b ) p r o h i b i t i n g j u r o r s f r o m i m p e a c h i n g

t h e i r o w n v e r d i c t s i s t h a t t h e r u l e p r o t e c t s a g o o d s y s t e m t h a t c a n n o t b e m a d e p e r f e c t

. A s t h e

S u p r e m e C o u r t s t a t e d

, “ T h e r e i s l i t t l e d o u b t t h a t p o s t v e r d i c t i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o j u r o r

m i s c o n d u c t w o u l d i n s o m e i n s t a n c e s l e a d t o t h e i n v a l i d a t i o n o f v e r d i c t s r e a c h e d a f t e r

See Shillcutt v. Gagnon , 827 F.2d 1155, 1159 ( 7th Cir. 1987) (noting tha t a “f ruitful 1 0

exchang e of ide as and impre ssions among juror s” depe nds upon “some assur ance that what is

said in the jury

room will not reac h a lar g er a udience ”).

Tanner v. United States , 483 U.S. 107, 120 (1987) (a lleg ations of juror misconduc t 1 1

during delibera tions would “seriously disrupt” finality

).

Jorgense n v. Y

ork Ic e Mac hinery Corp. , 160 F.2d 432, 435 ( 2d Cir. 1947) (Judge 1 2

L ear ned Ha nd) (“ [I ]t would be imprac ticable to impose the c ounsel of absolute pe rfe ction that no

verdic t shall stand, unless ever y juror has be en entire ly

without bias, and has base d his vote only

upon evidenc e he ha s hear d in court. I t is doubtful whether more than one in a hundr ed ver dicts

would stand such a te st; and althoug h absolute justice may require as much, the impossibilit y of

achie ving it has induc ed judg es to take a middle course, f

or they have r ecog nized that the

instit ution could not otherwise survive; they would become Penelopes, for ever eng ag ed in

unrave lling the we bs they wove. L ike much else in human aff airs, its defe cts are so deeply

enmeshe d in the sy stem that wholly to disentang le them would quite kill it.”).

See U nited States v. Eagle , 539 F.2d 1166, 1170 ( 8th Cir. 1976) (purpose of rule is to 1 3

preve nt “fra

ud by individual jurors who could re main silent during de liberations and late r asse rt

that they wer e influenc ed by

improper c onsiderations”)

.

Id. 1 4McQua rrie D issent Page 5

i r r e s p o n s i b l e o r i m p r o p e r j u r o r b e h a v i o r

. I t i s n o t a t a l l c l e a r

, h o w e v e r

, t h a t t h e j u r y s y s t e m

c o u l d s u r v i v e s u c h e f

f o r t s t o p e r f

e c t i t

. ” 1 5

O n t h e o t h e r h a n d

, t h e r u l e e x a c t s g r e a t c o s t s a s w e l l

. V e r d i c t s t h a t a r e b a s e d u p o n

i n f o r m a t i o n a n d o p i n i o n s t h a t h a v e n o t b e e n i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e

, a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g

o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s

, o r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h r e a t s o r b r i b e s a r e u n f a i r t o t h e l o s i n g

p a r t y

. R u l e 6 0 6 ( b ) i s a n a t t e m p t

, a l b e i t i m p e r f e c t

, t o s t r i k e a n a p p r o p r i a t e b a l a n c e b e t w e e n 1 6

t h e n e e d t h e p r o t e c t j u r o r s

, t h e v e r d i c t

, a n d t h e s a n c t i t y o f j u r o r d e l i b e r a t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e

s t r o n g l y c o m p e t i n g d e s i r e t o r e c t i f y a v e r d i c t t a i n t e d b y i r r e g u l a r i t y

.

B e c a u s e o f t h e h i g h c o s t o f i n s u l a t i n g a v e r d i c t t a i n t e d b y i r r e g u l a r i t y

, F e d e r a l R u l e

6 0 6 ( b ) c r e a t e d t w o n a r r o w e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t p o s t

- v e r d i c t j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s 1 7

a n d t e s t i m o n y

. A j u r o r m a y t e s t i f y t o w h e t h e r ( A ) “ e x t r a n e o u s p r e j u d i c i a l i n f

o r m a t i o n w a s

Tanner , 483 U.S. at 120. 1 5

1 S T E V E N G O O D E E T A L

., G U I D E T O T H E T E X A S R U L E S O F E V I D E N C E : C I V I L A N D 1 6

C R I M I N A L , § 606.2, at 535 (Te x . Prac. Ser ies 1993).

Fe dera l Rule 606(b) re ads as f ollows: 1 7

(b) During an In qui ry Into the Validity of a Verdict or Indictm ent.

(1) P rohibited Testim ony or Other Evidence. During an inquiry into the validity

of a

verdic t or indictment, a juror ma y not testify

about any

statement made or incident that

occur red dur ing the jury ’s deliber ations; the eff ect of any thing on that juror ’s or a

nother

juror’s vote; or

any juror’s menta l proce sses conc erning the ver dict or indictment. The

court may not rec eive a

juror’s a ffidavit or e vidence of a juror ’s statement on these

matters.

2) Exceptions. A juror may testify about whethe r:

(A) extraneous pre

judicial information was imprope rly broug ht to the jury ’s attention;

(B) an outside influenc e wa s improperly broug ht to bear on a

ny juror; or

(C) a mistake wa s made in ente ring the ver dict on the ver dict form.McQua rrie D issent Page 6

i m p r o p e r l y b r o u g h t t o t h e j u r y ’ s a t t e n t i o n

, ” o r w h e t h e r ( B ) “ a n o u t s i d e i n f l u e n c e w a s

i m p r o p e r l y b r o u g h t t o b e a r o n a n y j u r o r [

. ] ” T h e s e e x c e p t i o n s d e a l w i t h v e r y d i f f e r e n t 1 8

s i t u a t i o n s a n d s h o u l d n o t b e c o n f u s e d

. T h e y a r e n o t i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e

.

T h e f i r s t

, “ e x t r a n e o u s p r e

j u d i c i a l i n f

o r m a t i o n

, ” r e f

e r s t o a n y i n f

o r m a t i o n t h a t i s

“ c o n v e y e d t o t h e j u r y t h r o u g h e x t r a r e c o r d s o u r c e s

, ” u n l e s s t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o m m o n 1 9

k n o w l e d g e i n t h e c o m m u n i t y

. S u c h i n f o r m a t i o n f

r e q u e n t l y c o u l d h a v e b e e n

, b u t w a s n o t

,

i n t r o d u c e d a s e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l

. T h e p r o b l e m w i t h a n y o n e

, j u r o r o r n o n

- j u r o r

, p r o v i d i n g t h i s

e x t r a r e c o r d m a t e r i a l i s t h a t t h e p a r t i e s d o n o t h a v e a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o m e e t

, r e b u t

, o r e x p l a i n

t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h m a y

, o r m a y n o t

, b e a c c u r a t e

. U n d e r t h i s e x c e p t i o n

, j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s 2 0

a n d t e s t i m o n y t h a t a d m i t t o r e a d i n g n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e s

, l i s t e n i n g t o r a d i o p r o g r a m s

, o r

w a t c h i n g t e l e v i s i o n r e p o r t s a b o u t t h e t r i a l m a y b e o f f e r e d t o a t t a c k t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e

v e r d i c t

. A j u r o r ’ s a f

f i d a v i t c o n c e r n i n g h i s o r a n o t h e r j u r o r ’ s c o n d u c t o f l o o k i n g u p 2 1

A third exception, whether “a mistake was made in entering the ver dict on the ver dict 1 8

form,” w as adopte d in 2006 to permit juror aff idavits and testimony

to prove a

cler ical er

ror in

rec ording the ver dict. See F E D

. R. E V I D . 606(b) a dvisory committee’s note on 2006 a mendments.

3 C H R I S T O P H E R B. M U E L L E R & L A I R D C. K I R K P A T R I C K

, F E D E R A L E V I D E N C E § 249, at 1 9

70 (2d ed. 1994) (“M U E L L E R ”).

Id. at 71. 2 0

See, e .g.

, Mattox v. U

nited States , 146 U.S. 140, 149-51 (1892) ( trial judg e er red in 2 1

excluding juror a ffidavits admitting to re ading a new spaper article during delibera tions stating

that defe ndant had be en tried f or his life once befor e, that the e vidence ag ainst him was very

strong , that the ar g ument of the prose cution was such tha t defe ndant’s fr iends g ave up a ll hope,

and that the jury ’s deliber ations would probably not last over an hour ) M U E L L E R

, supra note 19,

at 71 (“ The e x ception allows proof that one or more members of the jury broug ht to trial specific

persona l knowledg e about the pa rty or controve rsy

or ac quired such know ledg e fr om sources

outside the courtr oom during trial or deliber ations, often by way of media sour ces ( newspa per,McQua rrie D issent Page 7

p r e j u d i c i a l i n f

o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e p a r t i e s o r t h e t r i a l o n t h e I n t e r n e t a n d r e p o r t i n g h i s f i n d i n g s

b a c k t o o t h e r j u r o r s m a y b e a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r e x c e p t i o n

. 2 2

T h e s e c o n d e x c e p t i o n

, a n “ o u t s i d e i n f l u e n c e ” i m p r o p e r l y b r o u g h t t o b e a r o n a j u r o r

,

r e f e r s t o t h o s e b l a t a n t

, s u b t l e

, o r e v e n u n c o n s c i o u s a c t s b y o u t s i d e r s t o a f f e c t t h e v e r d i c t o r

i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n s

. I n s i m p l e t e r m s

, i t r e f e r s t o j u r y t a m p e r i n g

. O b v i o u s l y

, a 2 3

j u r o r ’ s a f

f i d a v i t o r t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g s o m e o n e ’ s a t t e m p t s t o b r i b e

, b l a c k m a i l

, o r t h r e a t e n

a n y j u r o r w o u l d q u a l i f

y u n d e r t h i s e x c e p t i o n

. I n a d v e r t e n t

, b u t i m p r o p e r

, s t a t e m e n t s b y a 2 4

radio, tele vision).”) (f

ootnotes omitt ed).

See Ste bner v. Assoc . Materials, Inc. , 234 P.3d 94, 98 (Mont. 2010) (juror’ s aff idavit 2 2

admitting that she c onducted a nd share d internet re sear ch on the ter m “pre pondera

nce” prior to

jury rea ching verdic t in breac h of wa rra nty case could be c onsidered in de ciding whether her

rese arc h constituted ext rane ous prejudicial infor mation that was improper ly broug ht to jury ’s

attention; concluding that it was not prejudicial a nd did not affe ct jury ’s ver dict); cf. State v.

Patino , 699 S.E.2d 678, 684 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) (“Extraneous pre judicial information is

‘informa tion dealing with the defe ndant or the c ase w hich is being tried, which infor mation

rea ches a juror without being introduced in e vidence .’ Dictionar y definitions of leg al terms

rese arc hed and r ead to the jur y by the fore person a

re not e x trane ous prejudicial infor mation and

cannot be used to impeac h a jury ’s ver dict.”) ( citations omitt ed).

McD onald v. Pless , 238 U.S. 264, 267-68 (1915) ( while the prohibition ag ainst post- 2 3

verdic t juror af

fidavits or testimony

“may often e x clude the only

possible evidence of

misconduct, a c hang e in the rule ‘would open the door to the most pernicious ar ts and tampering

with jurors.’ ‘The prac tice would be r eplete w ith dang erous c onsequenc es.’ ‘ I t would lead to the

g rossest fra

ud and abuse ’ and ‘ no verdic t would be safe .’”) (citations omitted).

See R emme r v. United States , 347 U.S. 227, 229 (1954) (“ I n a cr iminal case, a ny 2 4

private c ommunication, contact, or tampering direc tly

or indirec tly , with a juror dur ing a trial

about the matter

pending befor e the jury

is, for obvious rea sons, deemed pr esumptively

prejudicia l”); Jorgense n v. Y ork Ic e Mac hinery Corp. , 160 F.2d 432, 435 ( 2d Cir. 1947)

(“br ibery ” of juror

is a matter on whic h juror af fidavits may

be re ceive d).McQua rrie D issent Page 8

b a i l i f f t o t h e j u r y o r p r o t e s t e r s m a r c h i n g o u t s i d e t h e c o u r t h o u s e w i t h t h r e a t e n i n g s i g n s

2 5

m i g h t a l s o q u a l i f

y i f t h e y a r e l i k e l y t o a f f e c t t h e j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t

.

T h e d r a f t e r s o f t h e T e x a s R u l e s o f C i v i l E v i d e n c e r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t t h e S u p r e m e

C o u r t a d o p t F e d e r a l R u l e 6 0 6 ( b ) v e r b a t i m

, t h u s i n c l u d i n g t h e t w o e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e g e n e r a l

p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s o r t e s t i m o n y t o a t t a c k t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e v e r d i c t

. B u t t h e 2 6

T e x a s S u p r e m e C o u r t i n t e n t i o n a l l y d e l e t e d t h e “ e x t r a n e o u s p r e j u d i c i a l i n f

o r m a t i o n ”

e x c e p t i o n

. “ A l t h o u g h i t o f f e r e d n o e x p l a n a t i o n f o r i t s a c t i o n

, t h e m o s t p l a u s i b l e 2 7

e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t t h e C o u r t w a s c o n s c i o u s l y t r y i n g t o c u r t a i l t h e w i d e s p r e a d

, a n d w i d e l y

c r i t i c i z e d

, p r a c t i c e o f ‘ t r y i n g t h e j u r y

. ’ ” P r o f e s s o r s G o o d e

, W e l l b o r n

, a n d S h a r l o t ( a l l t h r e e 2 8

o f w h o m h a d b e e n o n t h e L i a i s o n C o m m i t t e e t h a t d r a f t e d t h e 1 9 8 3 r u l e s )

, e x p l a i n t h a t

, i f t h e

S u p r e m e C o u r t h a d “ r e t a i n e d t h e m a l l e a b l e ‘ e x t r a n e o u s p r e j u d i c i a l i n f

o r m a t i o n ’ e x c e p t i o n

,

l a w y e r s w o u l d s t i l l h a v e h a d a s t r o n g i n c e n t i v e t o c o n t a c t j u r o r s a f t e r a v e r d i c t w a s

r e n d e r e d

. ” I n d e e d

, t h a t i s p r e c i s e l y w h a t h a p p e n e d i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s w h e n t h i s C o u r t

2 9

See U nited States v. Gree r , 620 F.2d 1383, 1385- 86 (10th Cir. 1980) (juror s could 2 5

testify to lunch brea

k conver sation with deputy marshal who told them about ter ms and eff

ects of

Youth Correc tions Act and diffe rent ty pes of possible sente ncing ).

See S. G O O D E E T A L

. supra note 16, § 606.2, at 540. Profe ssors Goode, Wellborn, and 2 6

Sharlot expl ain, “As pr oposed by the L iaison Commi ttee, Te x as Civil R ule 606(b) w ould have

contained both the ‘ extraneous pre judicial information’ a

nd ‘outside influenc e’ e x ceptions.”

Id. 2 7

Id. 2 8

Id. 2 9McQua rrie D issent Page 9

e n a c t e d i t s v a g u e a n d a m o r p h o u s e x c e p t i o n t o R u l e 6 0 6 ( b ) i n 1 9 8 6

. I t w a s f o r t h a t v e r y 3 0

r e a s o n t h a t t h i s C o u r t a d o p t e d t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s v e r s i o n o f R u l e 6 0 6 ( b ) i n 1 9 9 8

. H a v i n g 3 1

a d o p t e d t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s v e r s i o n o f t h e r u l e

, w e o u g h t n o t c h a n g e i t s m e a n i n g a n d

c o n t e n t w i t h o u t f

i r s t ( 1 ) c o n s u l t i n g t h a t c o u r t

, a n d ( 2 ) c h a n g i n g t h e w o r d i n g o f t h e r u l e t o

e x p l i c i t l y i n c o r p o r a t e t h e f e d e r a l e x c e p t i o n f

o r “ e x t r a n e o u s p r e

j u d i c i a l i n f

o r m a t i o n

. ” P e r h a p s

i t w o u l d b e a g o o d i d e a t o a m e n d R u l e 6 0 6 ( b ) t o a l l o w c o u r t s t o c o n s i d e r j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s a n d

t e s t i m o n y a b o u t a j u r o r ’ s I n t e r n e t r e s e a r c h a n d h e r r e p o r t o f t h a t r e s e a r c h b a c k t o o t h e r

j u r o r s

. B u t u n t i l R u l e 6 0 6 ( b ) i s f o r m a l l y a m e n d e d

, w e a r e n o t f r e e t o d o s o i n f

o r m a l l y

.

Rule 606(b) of the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence r ead a s follows: 3 0

(b) Inqu iry Into Validity of Ver dict or Indictm ent

Upon an inquiry

into the validity

of a ve rdict or indictment, a jur or may not testify

as to any matter or sta

tement occ urring during the cour se of the jur y ’s

delibera tions or to the effe ct of a ny thing upon his or a

ny other juror ’s mind or

emotions as influencing him to assent to or dissent from the ver dict or indictment

or conc erning his mental proce sses in connec tion therewith, exc ept that a juror

may testify as to any matter re levant to the validity of the ve rdict or indictment.

Nor may his affida vit or evidenc e of a ny statement by

him concer

ning a matter

about which he would be pre cluded f rom testify ing be rec eived f or these pur

poses.

This rule wa s dece ptively worde d and interna lly

contra dictory . First, it prohibits the jurors from

testify ing to a

ny matter oc curr ing dur ing its deliber ations and then it contains an e x ception that

states that jurors may

testify as to any thing r eleva

nt to the validity

of the ve rdict. That e x ception

completely

swallowed the rule a

nd “wa s the source of much c onfusion[.] ”

G O O D E E T A L

., supra note 15, § 606.3, at 193 (2001 Supp.) ( “Ne w Rule 606(b) c hang es 3 1

drama tically

the extent to which jurors may testify conce rning the validity

of a c riminal verdict or

indictment. . . . Presumably , the Court of Criminal Appea ls decided to a lign c riminal prac tice

with civil practice .”); see H ines v. State , 3 S.W .3d 618, 621 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 1999, pet.

ref ’d) ( “[T] he rule in civil cases is now the r ule in criminal ca ses: jurors may testify only to

whether any outside influence was broug ht to bear upon a juror.”) ; In re S.P. , 9 S.W .3d 304, 308-

09 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (noting that courts in cr iminal cases should look to

civil case s for g uidance on what constitutes an “ outside influence ”; jury ’s discussion about the

thickness of de fenda

nt’s probation file, whic h was not introduce d into evidence , was not an

“outside influenc e”)

.McQua rrie D issent Page 10

I r e s p e c t f

u l l y d i s s e n t

.

F i l e d : O c t o b e r 1 0

, 2 0 1 2

P u b l i s h