CCL has filed an amicus curiae brief August 12 on behalf of the American Association for Justice, asking the Supreme Court to reject calls for more intrusive inquiry into jury deliberations by litigants seeking to overturn a verdict.

In Warger v. Shauers, No. 13-517, the Supreme Court must decide whether a new trial is warranted when a juror reports that, during deliberations, another juror said something appearing to be inconsistent with answers to questions posed during voir dire. The district court denied a new trial motion after the verdict, holding that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) barred use of juror testimony or affidavits to impeach the verdict. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, though the court acknowledged that there was a split among the circuits regarding the admissibility of juror testimony to show that a juror gave false information on voir dire. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In an amicus brief authored by CCL Senior Counsel Jeffrey White, AAJ argued that history, the Rule’s text, and the strong policy reasons underlying the Rule counsel against expanding judicial inquiry into jury deliberations. The Supreme Court has consistently adhered to the common law rule that juror testimony is not admissible to impeach the jury’s verdict. It has permitted limited exceptions only where the testimony showed the jury was exposed to prejudicial extraneous information or improper outside influences. White further argued that, although the right to a fair and impartial jury is important, perfectly unbiased juries in every case is an impossible goal. Moreover, other important values are also at stake. The confidentiality of jury deliberations is essential to the jury’s function and to the great respect accorded their verdicts. Additionally, allowing new trials based on juror testimony would make jurors the targets of harassment by disappointed litigants, particularly those with resources to pursue such inquiries. Finally, allowing such inquiries would enmesh federal courts in a seemingly endless cycle of putting jurors on trial in an effort to unravel their work. Allowing losing litigants to probe the jurors’ mental processes would further erode the constitutional right to trial by jury.