Rule 606 Competency of Juror as Witness

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

(a) At the trial. A member of the jury may not testify as a witness before that jury in the trial of the case in which the juror is sitting. If the juror is called so to testify, the opposing party shall be afforded an opportunity to object out of the presence of the jury.
(b) Inquiry into validity of verdict in civil action. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict in a civil action, 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 that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict, or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor may a juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror, concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying, be received for these purposes.

Comment

Paragraph (a) establishes a rule of disqualification, and reflects considerations similar to those in Rule 605, which precludes the testimony of the trial judge. Paragraph (b) applies only in civil actions, and provides that a juror may testify whether (1) the jurors received any extraneous prejudicial information; or (2) anyone tried to influence the jurors.[1] Rule 24.1, Ariz. R. Crim. P., applies in criminal actions, and provides that a juror may testify whether (1) the jurors received any evidence not admitted at trial; (2) the jurors decided the verdict by lot; (3) a juror failed to answer truthfully on voir dire; (4) anyone tried to influence the jurors; (5) any juror was intoxicated during deliberations; and (6) any juror conversed with anyone interested in the outcome of the case. Both these rules provide that a party may present these matters by either testimony or affidavit.[2]

Paragraph (b) reflects an accommodation between those policies designed to safeguard the institution of trial by jury and policies designed to ensure a just result in a particular case. The circumstances under which a verdict may be impeached reflect a dividing line between inquiry into the thought processes of the jurors on the one hand, and inquiry into the existence of conditions or the occurrence of events that a court can conclude would have a reasonable possibility of exerting an improper influence on the verdict.[3]

The jurors may not consider information they received during the trial that was not admitted at trial, but may rely on their own experience and knowledge gained prior to trial, and for the jurors to...