University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 29 Article 3 Number 1 Fall 1998 1998 The seU of Juror Testimony to Impeach a Jury Verdict: The aM ryland Problem and the Federal Solution Sean Patrick Casey Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Casey, Sean Patrick (1998) "The sU e of Juror Testimony to Impeach a Jury Verdict: The aM ryland Problem and the Federal Solution," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 29 : No. 1 , Article 3. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol29/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Articles THE USE OF JUROR TESTIMONY TO IMPEACH A JURY VERDICT: THE MARYLAND PROBLEM AND THE FEDERAL SOLUTION by Sean Patrick Casey I. INTRODUCTION jury because he would be a great help."8 The only evidence of the non-juror's statements was the In Haley v. Blue Ridge Transfer Co., 1 affidavit.9 The United States Court of Appeals for the independent truckers sued a trucking company ("Blue Fourth Circuit ruled that the trial court correctly Ridge") claiming that Blue Ridge breached a contract admitted the juror's affidavit under Rule 606(b) of the by unfairly assigning favorable trucking routes to Blue Federal Rules of Evidence. 1o Presuming the non­ Ridge employees. On the morning of trial, courthouse juror's comments influenced the jury, the court security guards mistakenly directed a non-juror to the granted Blue Ridge's motion.lI jury room. The non-juror sat with the jury during the If Haley were decided under Maryland law, the first day of trial, listening to the opening statements court's analysis and final ruling would have been quite and the plaintiffs' first witness. The regular jurors different. A Maryland court would deem the affidavit believed the non-juror was a member of the panel. inadmissible under Md. Rule 5-606(b)12 and The error was not spotted initially, because thirteen accompanying case law, because it came directly from jurors had been selected, and the court had excused a juror. 13 The court could only review evidence not one of the thirteen before triaL2 After the first day, the emanating from the jury to determine whether the judge discovered the error and discharged the non­ non-juror's comments affected the verdict. 14 Under juror from further service.3 After a twelve day trial, Md. Rule 5-606, the admissible evidence in Haley was the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs.4 The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, alleging the non-juror prejudiced the verdict. In 8 See id. support of the motion, the defendant offered an 9 See id. at 1535. In Haley, the transcript from the evidentiary affidavit of a regular juror.s In the affidavit, the juror hearing was lost. The court did not address the issue of whether stated that during a recess the non-juror told the entire the non-juror was available to testify at the hearing. ld. jury that he was familiar with the trucking business 10 FED. R. EVID. 606(b). Rule 606 permits juror testimony 6 and knew trucking companies were unfair to truckers. "whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly The non-juror added that regardless of Blue Ridge's brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence defense, he would vote against the company. 7 was improperly brought to bear upon any juror." ld. Included in the affidavits was the fact that a female II See infra notes 91-106. juror said, "she was glad this gentleman was on the 12 Md. R. 5-606(b) Inquiry into Validity of Verdict (l )Inquiry into the validity of a verdict, a juror may not testify as to (A) any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations, (B) the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent I 802 F.2d 1532 (4th Cir. 1986). or dissent from the verdict, or (C) the juror's mental processes in connection with the verdict. 2 See id. at 1534. (2)A juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror 3 See id. concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded 4 See id. from testifying may not be received for these purposes. S See id. 13 See infra note 53. 6 See id. 14 See Harford Sands, Inc. v. Groft, 320 Md. 136, 145, 577 A.2d 7 See id. 7,11(1990). 29.1 U. Bait. L. F. 17 Articles that an individual sat with the jury for one day of a contact,2° dictionaries,21 media coverage,22 and a twelve day trial. I5 myriad of other extrinsic forces have tainted jury Viewing this evidence under Maryland's verdicts. If a competent source of evidence exposing "probability of prejudice" test,16 the court would likely these improprieties cannot be found, a reviewing court deny Blue Ridge's motion for a new trial. The will affirm a corrupted verdict. available evidence would not suggest that the non­ The primary issue in verdict impeachment cases juror held a strong bias against trucking companies, is what evidence a court may consider in determining nor would the court have considered the female juror's the degree of prejudice that was placed on the favorable impression of the non-juror's presence. 17 deliberations of the jury. The purpose of this article is The possibility existed for the non-juror's mere to explain the Maryland and federal approaches to this presence to have influenced the verdict, but it would issue and offer an equitable alternative to Maryland's be unreasonable to conclude that the non-juror strict rule. The article commences with an probably prejudiced the verdict. 18 examination of the historical background and policy In many situations, Maryland's strict rule that a considerations for denying admissibility of jury juror will not be heard to impeach his or her own testimony for verdict impeachment purposes. Next, it verdict, denies litigants a verdict based "solely on discusses the Maryland and federal approaches to this evidence presented" at trial. 19 Improper third party issue. The article closes by proposing that the Court of Appeals of Maryland abandon its hard line doctrine in favor of a balanced rule. The proposed rule 15 The non-juror would be permitted to testify under Md. Rule 5- combines elements of Federal Rule 606(b) with a 606, but the Haley court did not address the issue of the non­ variation of the local rule of the United States District juror's testimony. Court for the Distr"ict of Maryland that generally 16 See Wernsing v. General Motors, Co., 298 Md. 406, 419-20, prohibits attorneys from contacting discharged 470 A.2d 802,809 (1984). 23 Where . the precise extraneous matter is jurors. known but direct evidence as to its effect on the deliberations is not permitted, a sound II. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS balance is struck by a rule which looks to the probability of prejudice from the face of the The tenet that a juror will not be heard to extraneous matter in relation to the circumstances of the particular case. It is the impeach his or her own verdict has its roots in function of the trial judge when ruling on a eighteenth century England. In Vaise v. Delaval,24 a motion for a new trial to evaluate the degree of party offered juror affidavits to prove that after probable prejudice and whether it justifies a reaching an impasse, the jury flipped a coin to new trial. Id. (emphasis added). determine the verdict of the suit.25 Articulating what 17 See Williams v. State, 204 Md. 55, 70, 102 A.2d 714, 721 has become known as Lord Mansfield's Rule, the (1954). In Maryland there has been no deviation from court refused to consider the affidavits. Writing for the rule that what takes place in the jury-room the court, Lord Mansfield stated: ought to be ... known only to the jurors themselves and their testimony cannot be 20 See Kelly v. Huber Baking Co., 145 Md. 321, 125 A. 782 heard to impeach their verdict, whether the (1924). conduct objected to be misbehavior or 21 See Wernsing, 298 Md. at 419,470 A.2d at 809. mistake. !d. 22 See United States v. Rocks, 339 F. Supp. 249 (E.D. Va. 1972). 18 See Wernsing, 298 Md. at 419,470 A.2d at 808. 23 See U.S. DIST. CT. MD. R. 107.16. 19 See James W. Diehm, Impeachment ofJury Verdicts: Tanner v. United States and Beyond, 65 ST. JOHN'S L. REv. 389, 393 24 99 Eng. Rep. 944 (K.B. 1785). (1991). 25 See id. 29.1 U. Bait. L. F. 18 Articles The Court cannot receive such an affidavit The danger is not limited to interrogations by from any of the jurymen themselves, in all defeated litigants. Once a court receives testimony of whom such conduct is a very high from the defeated party, the prevailing party will be misdemeanor, but in every such case the compelled to gather testimony in support of the 3 Court must derive their knowledge from verdict. ! Conflicting testimony will be offered, and some other source: such as from some a race to credible jurors will ensue.