Opinion ID: 2295861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: post-trial evidence of a juror's mental infirmity

Text: Appellants seek a new trial based on post-trial evidence that a juror may have been suffering from a mental infirmity during the jury's deliberations. [100] A. The jury returned its verdicts on July 23, 1977; the court imposed sentences on September 6, 1977. Two months later on November 7, 1977, appellant Khaalis filed a Motion for New Trial and a Motion for Writ of Subpoena Duces Tecum for In Camera Examination of Records of St. Elizabeths Hospital concerning one of the jurors. Two weeks later, on November 23, 1977, Khaalis filed a Supplemental Motion for New Trial, accompanied by Motions for Writ of Subpoena Duces Tecum for In Camera Examination of Records of the same juror at the United States Postal Service, D.C. General Hospital, and Howard University Hospital. In these motions he requested a hearing based on unverified allegations that an undisclosed informant employed by the United States Postal Service had revealed that the juror (who was a postal employee) had exhibited bizarre and irrational behavior during jury deliberations, and that after the trial the juror had suffered attacks from a mental disorder, had engaged in bizarre and irrational conduct, had been examined by a physician at the Postal Service with respect to fitness for service and disability, and had been institutionalized at D.C. General Hospital[] and treated, in addition, at Howard University Hospital for conditions relating to mental disability. In his supporting memoranda, Khaalis asserted, more specifically, that during jury deliberations the suspect juror was barricaded in a restroom for an undetermined amount of time, and that as examples of bizarre and irrational behavior the juror allegedly committ[ed] an act of arson to her apartment on October 11, 1977, wander[ed] confused and disoriented about certain sections of the city, and finally [had] to be committed to St. Elizabeth's Hospital.. . . [101] On December 16, 1977, in a comprehensive written opinion and order, the trial court denied the motions, without a hearing. [102] B. There is a wise, traditional rule that a juror cannot impeach his or her own verdict. Sellars v. United States, D.C.App., 401 A.2d 974, 981-82 (1979); see McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 267, 35 S.Ct. 783, 59 L.Ed. 1300 (1915). ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Trial by Jury § 5.7 (Approved Draft, 1968); Fed. R.Evid. 606(b). Not long ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit summarized the reasons for this rule: The rule was formulated to foster several public policies: (1) discouraging harassment of jurors by losing parties eager to have the verdict set aside; (2) encouraging free and open discussion among jurors; (3) reducing incentives for jury tampering; (4) promoting verdict finality; (5) maintaining the viability of the jury as a judicial decision-making body. [ Government of Virgin Islands v. Gereau, 523 F.2d 140, 148 (3d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 917, 96 S.Ct. 1119, 47 L.Ed.2d 323 (1976) (citations omitted).] Accord, King v. United States, 576 F.2d 432, 438 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 850, 99 S.Ct. 155, 58 L.Ed.2d 154 (1978); United States v. Wilson, 175 U.S.App.D.C. 173, 176-77, 534 F.2d 375, 378-79 (1976); United States v. Dioguardi, 492 F.2d 70 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 829, 95 S.Ct. 49, 42 L.Ed.2d 53 (1974). The general rule, however, acknowledges the defendant's right to a jury of impartial, competent jurors, and accordingly is subject to an exception permitting a juror to testify about influences, external to the jury, which affected the verdict. [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 on his mind. [ Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 149, 13 S.Ct. 50, 53, 36 L.Ed. 917 (1892) (quoting Woodward v. Leavitt, 107 Mass. 453) (emphasis added).] More specifically, according to the federal circuit court in Government of Virgin Islands v. Gereau, supra at 149-150: Extraneous influence has been construed to cover publicity received and discussed in the jury room, consideration by the jury of evidence not admitted in court, and communications or other contact between jurors and third persons, including contacts with the trial judge outside the presence of the defendant and his counsel. By contrast, evidence of discussions among jurors, intimidation or harassment of one juror by another, and other intra-jury influences on the verdict is within the rule, rather than the exception, and is not competent to impeach a verdict. See Edwards v. District of Columbia, D.C. Mun.App., 68 A.2d 286 (1949); United States v. Pellegrini, 441 F.Supp. 1367, 1370 (E.D.Pa.1977), aff'd, 586 F.2d 836, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1050, 99 S.Ct. 731, 58 L.Ed.2d 711 (1978); Wilson, supra . Although this distinction between extraneous and intra-jury influences is generally appropriate for determining whether to permit a juror's testimony to impeach the verdict, that distinction is not necessarily meaningful when the threshold question of a juror's very competence is at issue. Thus, there is a further, tightly-circumscribed exception permitting inquiry into a juror's mental competence. In United States v. Dioguardi, supra at 79, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has expanded the exceptions into the following formulation: The rule against any inquiry whatever recognizes exceptions only where [1] there is clear and incontrovertible evidence of incompetence shortly before or after jury service, [2] clear evidence of some criminal act [ e. g., jury tampering] or [3] evidence of some objective fact of internal impropriety. [Emphasis added.] [103] As to the first exception, the Dioguardi court elaborated: It is well settled that only clear evidence of a jury's incompetence to understand the issues and to deliberate at the time of his service requires setting aside a verdict. And only strong evidence that it is likely that the juror suffered from such incompetence during jury service will justify an inquiry into whether such incompetence in fact did exist. [ Id. at 78.] Accord, United States v. Hall, 536 F.2d 313, 323 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 919, 97 S.Ct. 313, 50 L.Ed.2d 285 (1976); United States v. Dozier, 522 F.2d 224, 228 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1021, 96 S.Ct. 461, 46 L.Ed.2d 394 (1975); United States v. Cortes, 440 F.Supp. 689 (D.P.R.1977). Dioguardi pointed out, moreover, that the courts generally have found such clear and strong evidence of incompetence limited to an adjudication of mental illness or incompetency closely in advance of or after the trial. Id. at 80. In fact, evidence of such an adjudication is usually necessary even to justify the court's conducting a hearing into the alleged incompetence. Id.; accord, United States v. Allen, 588 F.2d 1100, 1106-07 & n. 12 (5th Cir. 1979); see United States v. Handy, 454 F.2d 885, 890-92 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 846, 93 S.Ct. 49, 34 L.Ed.2d 86 (1972). C. In the present case, appellants did not meet the criteria justifying a hearing on the juror's mental competence. Their proffers were insufficient. As already indicated, the motions were conclusional. Nor did appellants support their allegations with affidavits disclosing the source of their information or verifying the details. As to the only jury-room incident that was alleged, we perceive no basis for disturbing the trial court's finding that [n]o evidence has been proffered to the court to support the allegation that the juror at issue was `barricaded' in the bathroom. [104] Similarly, with respect to the juror's post-trial behavior, we agree with the trial court that appellants proffered no clear and uncontrovertible evidence of incompetence shortly before or after jury service. Dioguardi, supra at 79. If the information appellants received from the postal employee about the juror's behavior raised a serious question of mental infirmity, appellants can be expected to have alleged and filed affidavits verifying what information they had in detail  especially references to facts tending to show mental infirmity close in time to the trial itself. Appellants cannot expect the court to launch a fishing expedition into a juror's mental competence and, ultimately, into the jury deliberations themselves, without proffering and verifying enough detail which suggests, on its face, the need for further inquiry. See United States ex rel. Daverse v. Hohn, 198 F.2d 934, 938 (3d Cir. 1952). [105] The trial court nonetheless noted in its December 16, 1977, opinion that out of an abundance of caution and in order to assure that an adjudication of incompetency as to the juror did not exist, the court had subpoenaed the juror's psychiatric records from St. Elizabeth's Hospital for in camera inspection. On the basis of this inspection the court made the following findings of fact: 1. The juror was voluntarily admitted to the hospital on October 11, 1977, eighty (80) days after the rendition of the verdict. The records indicate absolutely no suggestion that the juror was suffering from a mental disability before or during the trial period. 2. The records indicate no adjudication of mental incompetency. The established psychiatric diagnosis was adjustment reaction to adult life (hysterical psychosis). The juror was discharged on October 17, 1977. [106] The court added: There was nothing in the demeanor of the juror in question during voir dire, trial or deliberations to indicate anything other than that she was attentive, competent and sane. [107] We do not need to reach the question whether evidence of an adjudication of mental illness or incompetency near the trial date is necessary to justify a hearing. Assuming it is not, we hold that the record here is insufficient to support appellants' request for a hearing on the question of the juror's mental competence. The proffers were too weak; they were unverified, conclusional, and did not evidence a mental infirmity closely contemporaneous to trial. [108]