You’re on a jury with a guy who’s an obvious racist. Think Juror #10 in 12 Angry Men. Is that juror’s bias enough to warrant a new trial in a criminal case? Maybe.
SCOTUS recently considered this question in Peña-Rodriguez v Colorado. Petitioner Peña-Rodriguez was convicted of harassing and having unlawful sexual contact with two teenagers. After trial, two jurors informed defense counsel that “Juror H.C.” had conveyed an anti-Hispanic bias toward petitioner and his alibi witness. H.C. said things such as “I think he did it because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want.”
Peña-Rodriguez’s attorneys submitted affidavits from the two jurors describing H.C.’s biased statements and requested a new trial. The trial court acknowledged H.C.’s bias but denied the new trial motion—a decision that was affirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court. Jury deliberations are protected under Colorado Rule of Evidence 606, known as the “no-impeachment” rule. Under this rule, jurors can’t be called to testify or submit affidavits about jury deliberations.
SCOTUS reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, holding that the Sixth Amendment trumped the no-impeachment rule in this case. The court emphasized that not all racially charged comments would justify setting aside no-impeachment rules. Rather, “[t]o qualify, the statement must tend to show that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in the juror’s vote to convict.” If this threshold is met, a trial court deciding a new trial motion has to be able to consider the evidence of racial bias during deliberations. As one commentator noted, SCOTUS didn’t shed any light on what procedures courts should follow in those circumstances, so that’s in the hands of the lower courts.
What does this mean for Michigan practitioners? According to Dave Moran, Peña-Rodriguez “effectively overruled Michigan Rule of Evidence 606 in part.” MRE 606 is virtually identical to the Colorado rule at issue in Peña-Rodriguez. For now, Peña-Rodriguez seems to apply only to criminal cases. Experts have argued that SCOTUS would have to address a number of issues before it could be extended to civil cases.
To see more analysis regarding this year’s SCOTUS criminal cases of interest, watch the Criminal Law Update 2017.