While jurors often “get it right” when deciding whether to award money to a Plaintiff, and determining the amount, the process is time-consuming, risky and jurors are free to say and do just about anything during deliberations.
In fact, in Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987), our United States Supreme Court has said it’s essentially OK for a juror to:
-
- smoke pot regularly during a trial,
- ingest cocaine,
- sell drugs to each other during a trial, including one juror selling one-quarter pound (110g) of marijuana to another juror during the trial,
- enjoy a “liter of wine” on three occasions during trial,
- have one or two mixed drinks during the lunch recess, and/or
- have the feeling of “flying” during jury deliberations.
What’s the Legal Basis For This?!
The Tanner court held that under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), the lower courts were correct in denying a hearing on juror misconduct. Rule 606(b) effectively “nips in the bud” the ability of a juror to testify to the alleged misconduct of other jurors, to impeach a jury verdict.
Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 606(b) is nearly identical federal rule 606(b), and provides:
Rule 606 – Juror’s Competency as a Witness
During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict. The court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters.
Making juror testimony inadmissible effectively shuts down an inquiry into their deliberations because (1) juror deliberations are done in private, and (2) impeaching the quality of deliberations will typically require the testimony of at least one juror to authenticate any recording of their behavior.
The only exception to Rule 606 is when an “outside influence” is brought to bear on any juror (such as a bribe or intimidation from people trying to influence the jury) per Pa.R.E. 606(2)(A), or, whether a juror offers his own evidence or information not of record to the process, such as a doctor on the jury giving his expert medical opinion that’s not properly in evidence. See Pa.R.E. 606(2)(B).
But how does Rule 606 make sense?
A Wise Man Dwells in a Fool’s Paradise
Why do courts choose the fool’s paradise of ignorance, when it comes to behavior by jurors that affects their mental ability to decide important cases?
The “So What?” Aspect
A juror can make up her mind about a case even before deliberations begin, potentially making what they say or do (or smoke) during deliberations irrelevant to the outcome. Ironically, self-medication or tuning out might improve deliberations if an unreasonable juror is involved. In United States v. Provenzano, 521 F. Supp. 403 (D.N.J. 1981), another case involving a pot-smoking juror, the court considered whether the drug’s effects impaired the jurors’ ability to hear evidence or deliberate and found: “[n]or is there any serious contention that the drug’s intoxicating effect affected the jurors’ ability to hear evidence or to deliberate.”
The Importance of Finality
Jury deliberation is like sausage: “the result is often satisfying, but you don’t want to know how it’s made,” as the saying goes.
The main purpose of our jury system isn’t necessarily to achieve “perfection” or even “fairness” in every case. Instead, it serves as a mechanism to bring finality to disputes within society. The ability to conclude disputes, whether ideally or not, is essential for maintaining the stability of our social and economic systems. Therefore, jurors have great latitude to negotiate, compromise, and even act bizarrely during deliberations, so long as they reach a verdict.
Moreover, closely scrutinizing a juror’s alleged misconduct or mental errors could introduce significant uncertainty into every case. The losing party might attempt to undermine the verdict by questioning the jurors’ mental capacity, potentially based on testimony from a disgruntled juror.
Therefore, without Pa.R.E. 606, the already lengthy legal process could become a cycle of inconclusive trials. Hence, judges and appellate courts almost always avoid delving into the specifics of juror deliberations.
So should you.
Ready to Learn More?
Understand the civil jury process in Western PA and make it work to your advantage.
