Warger v. Shauers
135 S. Ct. 521
| SCOTUS | 2014Background
- Gregory Warger sued Randy Shauers for negligence after a motorcycle–truck collision that resulted in Warger’s serious injuries and amputation of his left leg.
- During voir dire, prospective juror Regina Whipple answered she could be fair and award damages; she was later chosen as foreperson.
- The jury returned a verdict for Shauers. After trial, a juror swore an affidavit that Whipple had revealed in deliberations that her daughter was at fault in a fatal crash and would have been ruined by a lawsuit.
- Warger moved for a new trial under McDonough, alleging Whipple lied during voir dire about bias/ability to award damages; his only proffered evidence was the juror’s affidavit of Whipple’s statements in deliberations.
- The District Court excluded the affidavit under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b); the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Warger) | Defendant's Argument (Shauers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 606(b) bars juror testimony about another juror’s statements in deliberations when used to show that juror lied on voir dire | 606(b) should not apply; motions based on voir dire dishonesty concern only voir dire, not an "inquiry into the validity of the verdict" | Rule 606(b) bars such juror testimony during any proceeding in which the verdict’s validity is at issue | Rule 606(b) applies; postverdict motions to impeach verdict via juror testimony about deliberations are barred |
| Whether the juror affidavit fits Rule 606(b)(2)(A)’s "extraneous prejudicial information" exception | Whipple’s revelation would have disqualified her; anything she told jurors is therefore extraneous and admissible | Whipple’s statements derive from her personal experience (internal), not external information; therefore not covered by the extraneous-information exception | The affidavit is internal (not extraneous) and is excluded under Rule 606(b)(2)(A) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264 (court rejected allowing juror affidavits to impeach verdicts)
- Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 (distinguished admissibility where prior verdict not impeached)
- McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (allows new trial when juror lied on voir dire and truthful answer would have supported a challenge for cause)
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (treated juror incompetence and internal matters as excluded under Rule 606(b), and rejected Sixth Amendment challenge to the Rule)