Opinion ID: 1058958
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: substantive allegation of juror misconduct

Text: At trial, Morrisette exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and chose not to testify. The jury was properly instructed that the defendant does not have to testify and exercise of that right cannot be considered by [the jury]. Morrisette has submitted two juror affidavits, obtained following his direct appeal, wherein the jurors state that they speculated during deliberations as to why Morrisette did not testify. In claim XI(A)(1), Morrisette asserts that his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the jurors failed to follow the trial court's instructions and improperly considered his failure to testify as evidence of his guilt. The Court rejects this claim. The Court will not receive testimony of jurors regarding their own alleged misconduct in the jury room for the purpose of impeaching their verdict. See Kasi v. Commonwealth, 256 Va. 407, 425, 508 S.E.2d 57, 67 (1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1038, 119 S.Ct. 2399, 144 L.Ed.2d 798 (1999) (Virginia has been more careful than most states to protect the inviolability and secrecy of jury deliberations, adhering to the general rule that the testimony of jurors should not be received to impeach their verdict, especially on the ground of their own misconduct.). The Court has generally limited findings of prejudicial juror misconduct to activities of jurors that occur outside the jury room, Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 244 Va. 445, 460, 423 S.E.2d 360, 370 (1992), and the Court has held that a trial judge is not required to examine jurors in response to allegations of jury misconduct that is confined to the jury room. Id.