Opinion ID: 2708834
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Possibility of Juror Bias

Text: Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) generally prohibits the use of juror statements during an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment: 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. Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1). Exceptions to the rule only occur under three circumstances: (1) where extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought before the jury; (2) where an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; and (3) where a mistake was made in entering the verdict onto the verdict form. Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(2). The rule finds its basis in the common law tradition, and it is intended to preserve the privacy of jury deliberations as well as the integrity and finality of their verdicts. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 118–20 (1987). Torres-Chavez did not testify in his own defense at trial. The district court properly instructed the jury not to consider his failure to testify an admission of guilt or to consider it in any way, and we assume juries follow their instructions. Soltys v. Costello, 520 F.3d 737, 744 (7th Cir. 2008). In the week following the guilty verdict in this case, however, several jurors returned to the Northern District of Illinois jury pool and No. 13-1340 13 were subjected to voir dire in connection with possible jury service in unrelated trials. Five of those jurors were questioned concerning their consideration of a defendant’s exercise of his right not to testify during trial, and three responded problematically.1 Juror A ultimately confessed to an inability to follow the law in the new trial for which voir dire was being conducted: THE COURT: [Y]ou indicated that you would have some problems if the defendant did not testify in this case, am I right about that? JUROR A: Yes. THE COURT: … [I]f you’re in this courtroom situation and if you are instructed the government has the burden, the defendant has the right not to testify, would you be able to follow that instruction? JUROR A: I would try, but it’s hard because the last case we tried last week it was like the same thing. He didn’t testify. Me, I probably want to hear from the other side. THE COURT: Did the Judge instruct you that you shouldn’t consider whether or not he testified? 1 The United States Attorney’s Office learned of the jurors’ potentially problematic responses through its participation in the subsequent trials in which they were subjected to voir dire. Despite the Office’s doubt that the statements were admissible in Torres-Chavez’s case, it made them available to defense counsel so that the issue could be properly addressed. We commend the government for its candor in this matter and for the evenhanded approach it has taken. 14 No. 13-1340 JUROR A: I mean, yeah, but—