Opinion ID: 2082795
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Proving Juror Taint

Text: It is very difficult for any defendant to prove actual prejudice within a jury panel. [18] This difficulty is attributable to the sanctity of the jury's deliberations and the common law prohibition against jurors impeaching their own verdict. [19] Both the United States Supreme Court and this Court have recognized, however, that a flat prohibition against receiving post-verdict testimony from jurors would contravene another important public policy: that of `redressing the injury of the private litigant where a verdict was reached by a jury that was not impartial.' [20] The need to accommodate the conflicting policies of preserving the sanctity of a jury's deliberations and the defendant's right to an impartial jury has resulted in the recognition of a distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic influences upon a jury's verdict. [21] Since the 19th Century, the established rule regarding a juror's competence to attack a verdict is that `a juryman may testify to any facts bearing upon the question of the existence of any extraneous influence, although not as to how far that influence operated upon his [or her] mind.' [22] The common law prohibition against inquiry into the jurors' mental processes is adhered to in Delaware. [23] It has been codified in Delaware Rule of Evidence 606(b): COMPETENCY OF JUROR AS WITNESS. 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 he received for these purposes. [24] Accordingly, Delaware Rule of Evidence 606(b) permits juror testimony for the purposes of impeaching a verdict in two instances: (1) when extraneous prejudicial information [is] improperly brought to the jury's attention; or (2) when outside influence [is] improperly brought to bear upon any juror. [25] Nevertheless, inquiry into the jurors' mental processes remains prohibited. [26]