Impeachment of Jury Verdicts: C.r.e. 606(b)

• Publication year: 1999
• Pages: 69
• Citation: Vol. 28 No. 11 Pg. 69

28 Colo.Law. 69 Colorado Lawyer 1999.

1999, November, Pg. 69. Impeachment of Jury Verdicts: C.R.E. 606(b)

---

69

Vol. 28, No. 11, Pg. 69

The Colorado Lawyer
November 1999
Vol. 28, No. 11 [Page 69]

Specialty Law Columns
Civil Evidence
Impeachment of Jury Verdicts: C.R.E. 606(b)

Q: Can a party impeach a jury verdict with evidence of the jury's misunderstanding of the law, the jury's exposure to extraneous prejudicial information, or coercion of a jury member

A: A party can impeach a jury verdict with evidence of the jury's exposure to extraneous prejudicial information or coercion of a juror, but cannot impeach a jury verdict with evidence of the jury's misunderstanding of the law

Colorado Rules of Evidence ("C.R.E.") 606(b) addresses inquiry into the validity of a verdict or an indictment.1 The rule provides

A juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to 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 or indictment or concerning his mental processes in connection therewith. . . .

Rule 606(b), however, provides two exceptions: (1) a juror may testify as to whether "extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention"; and (2) a juror may testify as to whether "any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror."2

Background

The general rule against allowing evidence that delves into the jury's mental processes is premised on the belief that "allow[ing] such inquiry could subject jurors to harassment and coercion after the verdict and create uncertainty on the finality of verdicts."3 Applying C.R.E. 606(b), Colorado courts have repeatedly refused to consider evidence demonstrating that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the law. For example, in Munoz v. State Farm Automobile Ins. Co.,4 the defendant presented affidavits from jurors who stated that, contrary to the law, they had awarded attorney fees to the plaintiff as a part of her damages award. The court refused to consider this evidence.

Similarly, in People v. Collins,5 the defendant presented affidavits reflecting that all of the jurors failed to make a critical factual finding to support their verdict. The court ruled that the affidavits were inadmissible under C.R.E. 606(b), and held that "[a] juror may not testify as to the wrong exercise of his judgment or his confusion on the law or the facts or his misunderstandings."6 Rule 606(b) even protects the sanctity of a damages award that the jurors reached by averaging their individual damages assessments.7

Extraneous Prejudicial Information

The cases addressing...