Content area
Full Text
Introduction
The "no-impeachment rule" generally provides that a juror may not testify about statements made during jury deliberations if the statement is offered to challenge the validity of a verdict or indictment.1 This longstanding rule has roots dating back to English common law and the rule is codified in Rule 606(b) of both the Federal and Alabama Rules of Evidence.2
Although Rule 606(b) lists specific exceptions to this "no-impeachment rule," the United States Supreme Court has recently added a new exception based on the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.3 Specifically, on March 6,2017, the United States Supreme Court, in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado,4 ruled that an exception exists when a juror indicates with a "clear statement" that he "relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant."5 Under these criteria, other jurors may be permitted to testify about these statements during an inquiry into the validity of the verdict or indictment, even if they occurred during jury deliberations.6
This Article gives a brief overview of the no-impeachment rule and a brief summary of the Peña-Rodriguez decision. It concludes with an effort to answer some practical questions about the how this decision may impact the Alabama practitioner.
I. A Brief History of the No-Impeachment Rule and Rule 606(b)
From a procedural standpoint, the no-impeachment rule is most likely to come into play in conjunction with a motion for a new trial.7 If the motion for a new trial is based on some form of juror misconduct, the moving party will normally attach supporting affidavits from jurors that describe the misconduct.8 The responding party will then likely object and move to strike those affidavits and raise the no-impeachment rule.
At common law, long before the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence or the Alabama Rules of Evidence, jurors were generally precluded from giving testimony (by affidavit or otherwise) post-trial that would impeach their own verdict.9 As Dean Gamble has observed, this general exclusionary rule stems from several policies: "[1] to preserve the finality of verdicts ...; [2] to prevent the harassment of jurors ...; [and 3] to protect the deliberative process and thereby encourage free discussions in the jury room."10
Over the years, all jurisdictions have adopted this no-impeachment rule in some form.11...