Opinion ID: 6358387
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Juror influence

Text: Brown first argues that one of the jurors, Stephen Grillo (Grillo), tainted the jury deliberations. According to an affidavit Brown obtained from Grillo, some of the other jurors asked during deliberations, what was the point of voting for death since [Brown] was just going to sit in jail for [twenty] years. PCRA Petition, Appendix, Grillo Affidavit, 4/24/2013, ¶ 5. Grillo's affidavit indicated that he told the other jurors that, if sentenced to death, Brown would at least be in segregation and not in general population. Id. According to Grillo, he acquired this knowledge by reading John Grisham novels. Id. The law in this area is clear: A juror may not impeach his or her own verdict after the jury has been discharged. An exception to this rule is made for those situations where a jury has been exposed to an ex parte influence, which possesses a reasonable likelihood of prejudice. Commonwealth v. Rollins , 558 Pa. 532 , 738 A.2d 435 , 451 (1999) (quoting Commonwealth v. Laird , 555 Pa. 629 , 726 A.2d 346 , 356 (1999) ). In Rollins , the appellant argued that one juror improperly informed other jurors during deliberations that if it they sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment rather than death, he would be eligible for parole after serving only thirteen years of incarceration. Rollins , 738 A.2d at 451 . Our Court rejected this argument, determining that where no outside factor influenced the jury, deliberations were not tainted. Similarly here, Grillo, as a member of the jury, indicates that he made the statement at issue himself -- and thus there was no outside ex parte influence on the jury. Grillo cannot, by affidavit, impeach his own verdict. As such, this claim lacks arguable merit.