§ 18.08 COMPETENCY OF JURORS: FRE 606

• Jurisdiction: United States

§ 18.08. COMPETENCY OF JURORS: FRE 606

[A] Juror as Witness

Rule 606(a) prohibits a juror from testifying in a case in which that juror is serving as a member of the jury. The rationale for the rule is straightforward. How can a juror remain impartial after testifying for one of the parties? The rule also avoids the problem that would confront an opposing party attempting to impeach a juror and the adverse effects impeachment might have on other members of the panel. Occasion to invoke Rule 606(a) should be rare because a person called as a juror may be challenged for cause if that person is a potential witness or has personal knowledge of the case.⁶²

Objections. A party must object to the use of a juror as witness. The rule, however, requires that the party be provided an opportunity to object outside the presence of the jury. This avoids placing the party in the awkward position of objecting in front of the juror and other members of the panel.

[B] Impeachment of Verdicts and Indictments

Under Rule 606(b), jurors are incompetent to testify about the validity of a verdict or an indictment if the subject of their testimony involves internal jury deliberations. There are several exceptions, which are discussed below. Rule 606(b) applies to affidavits as well as to testimony.

Rationale. The rule attempts to accommodate several competing interests. "The values sought to be promoted by excluding the evidence include freedom of deliberation, stability and finality of verdicts, and protection of jurors against annoyance and embarrassment. On the other hand, simply putting verdicts beyond effective reach can only promote irregularity and injustice."⁶³

Internal influences. A juror is not competent to testify about the internal operations or thought-processes of the jurors during deliberations. The focus is on insulating "the manner in which the jury reached its verdict, and this protection extends to each of the components of deliberation, including arguments, statements, discussions, mental and emotional reactions, votes, and any other feature of the process."⁶⁴ In particular, the rule covers (1) any statement made or incident that occurred during deliberations, (2) the effect of anything on that juror's or another juror's vote, and (3) any juror's mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment.

The drafters specified compromise verdicts, quotient verdicts, speculation about insurance coverage, misinterpretation of instructions,⁶⁵ and interpretation of a guilty plea...