Opinion ID: 853122
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Request to Depose Jurors

Text: Majors next asks that we remand his case and order depositions of the jurors, the alternates, and the bailiffs. He claims the right to explore further his allegations of juror misconduct by deposing jurors who spoke to the State after the trial but chose not to speak with defense counsel. He cites the principle that absent a showing of no legitimate defense interest or of a paramount State's interest, a criminal defendant has the right to depose State witnesses. Murphy v. State, 265 Ind. 116, 352 N.E.2d 479 (1976). Juror depositions are a very different matter, however, from witness depositions. We recently emphasized the public interest in discouraging post-trial verdict impeachment via affidavit: ... [Post-verdict] juror affidavits could defeat the jury's solemn acts under oath, open the door to post-trial jury tampering, and allow dissatisfied jurors to destroy a verdict after assenting. Moreover, if impeachment were allowed, [t]he sanctity of verdicts would [ ] be diminished and no verdict could ever be final. Jurymen would forever be harassed. For these reasons we have historically been reluctant to open the door to a contest of affidavits and counter-affidavits and arguments and re-arguments as to why and how a certain verdict was reached. Such an unsettled state of affairs would be a disservice to the parties litigant and an unconscionable burden upon citizens who serve on juries. Griffin, 754 N.E.2d at 902 (citing, inter alia, Taylor v. Garnett, 110 Ind. 287, 11 N.E. 309 (1887)). The same concerns apply to post-verdict juror depositions. The federal courts take a similar position. See McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 267-68, 35 S.Ct. 783, 59 L.Ed. 1300 (1915) (denying defendant's request for post-verdict discovery); United States v. Riley, 544 F.2d 237, 242 (5th Cir.1976) (Historically, interrogations of jurors have not been favored by federal courts except where there is some showing of illegal or prejudicial intrusion into the jury process.). Majors seeks to corroborate allegations by one juror whose credibility, as we noted above, is dubious. [6] In response to these allegations, the State obtained affidavits from all eleven other jurors and three alternates. None offered any evidence of alcohol consumption during deliberations, improper prejudicial information, or outside influence, which are the only subjects to which jurors may testify under Evid. R. 606(b), and many denied any such activity. In sum, Majors has not demonstrated a defense interest sufficient to overcome the interests of finality of verdicts and avoidance of juror harassment. The trial court did not err in denying the request for depositions.