Rule 606(b): Competency of Juror as Witness (inquiry Into Validity of Verdict)
| Publication year | 1991 |
| Pages | 2057 |
| Citation | Vol. 10 No. 1991 Pg. 2057 |
1991, October, Pg. 2057. Rule 606(b): Competency of Juror as Witness (Inquiry into Validity of Verdict)
You represent the plaintiff in a contract dispute. At issue is the intent of the parties when they included the word "guarantee" in a certain clause in the contract.
After the jury returns a verdict for the plaintiff, the judge invites the attorneys to interview the jurors. It is then learned that, during a recess in their deliberations, several jurors looked up the word "guarantee" in their dictionaries. The dictionary definitions were then discussed at length among all the jurors. The jurors indicated that the dictionary definitions were very helpful in their deliberations. Some indicated they were dispositive.
Defense counsel later obtained affidavits from several of the jurors that detailed their use of the dictionaries and the impact of the definitions on their deliberations. At the hearing on the defendant's motion for a new trial, defense counsel seeks to introduce evidence of the juror's use of their own dictionaries, including the affidavits.
That the use by the jurors of the dictionaries constitutes misconduct is, of course, elementary.
The question remains as to the scope of evidence that may be introduced concerning the misconduct in a motion for new trialJurors are required to follow only the law as it is given in the court's instructions; they are bound, therefore, to accept the court's definitions of legal concepts and to obtain clarifications of any ambiguities in terminology from the trial judge, not from extraneous sources.(fn1)
CRE Rule 606(b) permits the introduction of evidence concerning the juror's exposure to extra-record information or influences.(fn2) However, evidence is limited under the rule to the nature of the information conveyed to the jurors.(fn3) Inquiring into the effect of the information on their deliberations is prohibited.(fn4) As the Colorado Supreme Court has stated, the rule "prohibits inquiry into the deliberative processes of juror".(fn5)
In the hypothetical, the court could consider those portions of the affidavits that indicate that extra-record information in the form of dictionary definitions were reviewed by the jurors in the course of their deliberations. CRE Rule 606(b) is clear on this point:
A juror may testify on the question of whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the juror's attention.
The court, however, could not consider those portions of the affidavits that discuss the impact the definitions had on the jury's deliberations. A juror
may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or the effect of anything upon his or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict.(fn6)
Once evidence of extra-record information has been admitted, the trial court must determine what effect the information would have had on a typical jury.(fn7) Upon motion for new trial "the relevant question is whether there is a 'reasonable possibility that extraneous contract or influence affected the verdict" to the detriment of the moving party.(fn8)
Finally, the Colorado Supreme Court has stated that the same standard is to apply in both civil and criminal proceedings. "Because the policies of CRE 606 apply to all judicial proceedings, we see no reason to establish separate standards for civil and criminal cases".(fn9)
Footnotes
1. Nieman v. District Court, 684 P.2d 931,
2. Wiser v. People, 732 P.2d 1139, 1141
3. United States v. Greer, 620 F.2d 1383,
4. Id.
5. Ravin v. Gambrell, 733 P.2d 817, 820 (Colo. 1990).
6. CRE 606(b). See also, Ravin, supra, note 5 at 820, wherein the Colorado Supreme court stated: In this case, the trial court and the Court of Appeals properly excluded from consideration those portions of juror affidavits which discussed the deliberative processes of the jurors.
7. Wiser, supra, note 2 at 1142.
8. Id.
9. Ravin, supra, note 5 at 821...
To continue reading
Request your trial