Opinion ID: 2103671
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Juror Testimony Concerning Quotient Verdict.

Text: Ryan claimed that the jurors committed misconduct by using a quotient verdict to arrive at the amount of punitive damages. A quotient verdict is a verdict in which the jurors agree in advance to be bound by the average of the amounts written down by each juror. See Sheker v. Jensen, 241 Iowa 583, 587, 41 N.W.2d 679, 681 (1950) (The pivotal factor is the agreement to be bound by the figure thus obtained, made prior to the ballot. ). While it is improper for the jury to agree to be bound by an average, it is not improper for a jury to use an average as an aid in discussion. See id.; see also Gus Gutfreund & Co. v. Williams, 172 Iowa 535, 537, 154 N.W. 753, 753 (1915). Before considering the merits of the claim of jury misconduct, Ryan must offer competent evidence of jury misconduct. Whether statements, affidavits, or testimony of jurors concerning their conduct can be received in evidence has given rise to substantial difference of opinion. Fed.R.Evid. 606(b) advisory committee's note. In McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 267, 35 S.Ct. 783, 784, 59 L.Ed. 1300, 1302 (1915), the United States Supreme Court held that testimony from jurors concerning a quotient verdict was not admissible. The McDonald Court reviewed the policy considerations presented by this issue. These two conflicting considerations are illustrated in the present case. If the facts were as stated in the affidavit, the jury adopted an arbitrary and unjust method in arriving at their verdict, and the defendant ought to have had relief, if the facts could have been proved by witnesses who were competent to testify in a proceeding to set aside the verdict. But let it once be established that verdicts solemnly made and publicly returned into court can be attacked and set aside on the testimony of those who took part in their publication and all verdicts could be, and many would be, followed by an inquiry in the hope of discovering something which might invalidate the finding. Jurors would be harassed and beset by the defeated party in an effort to secure from them evidence of facts which might establish misconduct sufficient to set aside a verdict. If evidence thus secured could be thus used, the result would be to make what was intended to be a private deliberation, the constant subject of public investigation; to the destruction of all frankness and freedom of discussion and conference. Iowa case law concerning competency of jurors to testify has developed largely from Wright v. Illinois & Miss. Tel. Co., 20 Iowa 195, 210 (1866). See generally Note, Use of Jurors' Affidavits to Impeach Verdict, 45 Iowa L. Rev. 649 (1960). In Wright, we held that jurors' affidavits concerning a quotient verdict were competent evidence when considering a motion for new trial. The court stated: While we do not feel entirely confident of its correctness, nor state it without considerable hesitation, yet we are not without that assurance, which, under the circumstances, justifies us in laying down the following true rule: That affidavits of jurors may be received for the purpose of avoiding a verdict, to show any matter occurring during the trial or in the jury room, which does not essentially inhere in the verdict itself .... Id. (emphasis added); see also Fuller v. Chicago & N.W. R.R. Co., 31 Iowa 211, 213 (1871). Iowa case law has developed primarily as an interpretation of whether a particular matter essentially inheres in the verdict. An early use of the subjective/objective test to determine if a matter inheres in the verdict appeared in Griffin v. Harriman, 74 Iowa 436, 38 N.W. 139, 140 (1888). The court suggested that objective reports of statements made in the jury room were competent evidence, however, subjective reports concerning the influence or effect of those statements were not competent. Id. Subsequent cases continued to use an objective/subjective test to determine if jurors' affidavits related matters that essentially inhere in the verdict. See Harris v. Deere & Co., 263 N.W.2d 727, 729-30 (Iowa 1978) (jurors may give evidence of objective facts of what actually transpired in jury room, but not as to what subjectively influenced their decision); Fischer, Inc. v. Standard Brands, Inc., 204 N.W.2d 579, 586 (Iowa 1973) (same); State v. Jackson, 195 N.W.2d 687, 690 (Iowa 1972); State v. Albers, 174 N.W.2d 649, 656-57 (Iowa 1970). A new dimension in the determination of whether a juror is competent to testify to statements made in deliberations appeared in State v. Rouse, 290 N.W.2d 911, 916 (Iowa 1980). After favorably referring to Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), we stated that [a] distinction must be drawn between inquiries into the internal workings of the jury and external pressures brought to bear on the decision-making process. Id. The court recognized that testimony of internal workings, such as the deliberations of the jury, were matters that inhere in the verdict and jurors were incompetent to testify to them. Id. The court went on, however, to favorably cite the Harris case for the proposition that certain objective facts may be testified to by a juror. Thus, Rouse did not discard the case law concerning the objective/subjective test, but did introduce the consideration of internal/external test as set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b). The internal/external test gained recognition in 1983 when Iowa adopted language identical to Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b). The Iowa Rule provides: (b) Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon his or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning his mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor may his affidavit or evidence of any statement by him concerning a matter about which he would be precluded from testifying be received for these purposes. Iowa R. Evid. 606(b); cf. Fed.R.Evid. 606(b). While adoption of rule 606(b) strengthens the argument for declaring jurors incompetent to testify as to statements made in deliberations, recent cases concerning this issue have demonstrated a certain amount of disharmony. Compare State v. Christianson, 337 N.W.2d 502, 504-05 (Iowa 1983) (evidence of discussions of jurors in the jury room inhere in verdict), with Crowley v. Glessner, 328 N.W.2d 513, 514 (Iowa 1983) (citing Rouse for internal/external test and Harris for objective/subjective test) and State v. Harrington, 349 N.W.2d 758, 762 (Iowa 1984) (favorably quotes both objective/subjective test and internal/external test); with State v. Sauls, 391 N.W.2d 239, 240-41 (Iowa 1986) (objective/subjective test) and State v. Cullen, 357 N.W.2d 24, 27 (Iowa 1984) (evidence from the jurors must consist only of objective facts as to what actually occurred in or out of the jury room bearing on misconduct) (emphasis added). Under existing Iowa case law, it is unclear if jurors are competent to testify as to statements made in the jury room which can be classified as objective, or if such testimony reveals the internal workings of the decision-making process and cannot be considered. Federal lawmakers were faced with a similar conflict when Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) was adopted. The differences between the Iowa common law and the federal rule are demonstrated in the Report of the House Judiciary Committee. The House committee suggested following Iowa case law by adopting an objective test which would allow testimony of objective statements made in the jury room. See Fed.R.Evid. 606(b) report of House Judiciary Committee. The Senate Judiciary Committee proposed a different rule. They proposed to exclude any evidence of the internal deliberations of the jury. Jurors would be competent to testify only to extraneous prejudicial information or outside influence which was brought to bear on the jury. See Fed.R.Evid. 606 report of Senate Judiciary Committee. In the end, the House version was rejected and the Senate version was adopted. See Fed.R.Evid. 606(b). We face a similar decision, that being whether to continue to allow juror testimony as to internal deliberations that can be characterized as objective, or to adopt the federal test which considers jurors incompetent to testify to any matter or statements occurring in the course of deliberations, see Scogin v. Century Fitness, Inc., 780 F.2d 1316, 1314-20 (8th Cir.1985). Based on Iowa's adoption of language identical to Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), and the policy reasons for insulating the manner in which the jury reaches its verdict, we now adopt the federal rule which protects each of the components of deliberation including juror arguments, statements, discussions, mental and emotional reactions, votes, and any other feature of the process occurring in the jury room. The district court was correct to disregard affidavits of jurors concerning a quotient verdict. This result is compatible with federal cases. See McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 267, 35 S.Ct. 783, 784, 59 L.Ed. 1300, 1302 (1915); Scogin v. Century Fitness, Inc., 780 F.2d 1316, 1319-20 (8th Cir.1985) (affidavit of juror alleging quotient verdict was not competent under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)).