Warger v. ShauersWarger v. Shauers
Petitioner Gregory Warger sued respondent Randy Shauers in federal court for negligence for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. After the jury returned a verdict for Shauers, one of the jurors contacted Warger‘s counsel, claiming that Regina Whipple, the jury foreperson, had revealed during deliberations that her daughter had been at fault in a fatal motor vehicle accident, and that a lawsuit would have ruined her daughter‘s life. Armed with an affidavit from the juror, Warger moved for a new trial, arguing that Whipple had deliberately lied during voir dire about her impartiality and ability to award damages. The District Court denied Warger‘s motion, holding that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which bars evidence “about any statement made . . . during the jury‘s deliberations,” barred the affidavit, and that none of the Rule‘s three exceptions, see Rule 606(b)(2), were applicable. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Held:
1. Rule 606(b) applies to juror testimony during a proceeding in which a party seeks to secure a new trial on the ground that a juror lied during voir dire. Pp. 3–10.
(a) This reading accords with the plain meaning of Rule 606(b), which applies to “an inquiry into the validity of [the] verdict.” This understanding is also consistent with the underlying common-law rule on which Congress based Rule 606(b). The so-called “federal rule” made jury deliberations evidence inadmissible even if used to demonstrate dishonesty during voir dire. Both the majority of courts and this Court‘s pre-Rule606(b) cases, see McDonald v. Pless, 238 U. S. 264, 268; Clark v. United States, 289 U. S. 1, favored this rule over the “Iowa rule,” which permitted the use of such jury deliberations evidence. The federal approach is clearly reflected in the lan
(b) Warger‘s arguments against this straightforward understanding are not persuasive. Pp. 8–10.
(1) First, Warger insists that proceedings for a new trial based on voir dire dishonesty do not involve an “inquiry into the validity of the verdict.” His reading would restrict Rule 606(b)‘s application to claims of error for which a court must examine the manner in which the jury reached its verdict, but the Rule does not focus on the means by which deliberations evidence might be used to invalidate a verdict. It simply applies during a proceeding in which a verdict may be rendered invalid. Pp. 8–9.
(2) Warger also contends that excluding jury deliberations evidence that shows voir dire dishonesty is unnecessary to fulfill Congress’ objectives, but his arguments would apply to all evidence rendered inadmissible by Rule 606(b), and he cannot escape the scope of the Rule merely by asserting that Congress’ concerns were misplaced. P. 9.
(3) Finally, Warger invokes the canon of constitutional avoidance, contending that only his interpretation protects the right to an impartial jury. But that canon has no application here, where there is no ambiguity. See United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Co-operative, 532 U. S. 483, 494. Moreover, this Court‘s Tanner decision forecloses any claim that Rule 606(b) is unconstitutional. Similar to the right at issue in that case, Warger‘s right to an impartial jury remains protected despite Rule 606(b)‘s removal of one means of ensuring unbiased jurors. Even if a juror lies to conceal bias, parties may bring to the court‘s attention evidence of bias before the verdict is rendered and use nonjuror evidence after the verdict is rendered. Pp. 9–10.
2. The affidavit at issue was not admissible under Rule 606(b)(2)(A)‘s exception for evidence of “extraneous prejudicial information.” Generally speaking, extraneous information derives from a source “external” to the jury. See Tanner, 483 U. S., at 117. Here, the excluded affidavit falls on the “internal” side. Warger contends that any information Whipple shared with the other jurors was extraneous because she would have been disqualified from the jury had she disclosed her daughter‘s accident. However, such an exception would swallow up much of the rest of the restrictive version of the common-law rule that Congress adopted in enacting Rule 606(b). Pp. 11–13.
721 F. 3d 606, affirmed.
Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court.
I
Petitioner Gregory Warger was riding his motorcycle on a highway outside Rapid City, South Dakota, when a truck driven by respondent Randy Shauers struck him from behind. Warger claims he was stopped at the time of the accident, while Shauers claims that Warger suddenly pulled out in front of him. Regardless of the cause of the accident, no one disputes its tragic result: Warger sustained serious injuries that ultimately required the ampu
Warger sued Shauers for negligence in Federal District Court. During jury selection, counsel for both parties conducted lengthy voir dire of the prospective jurors. Warger‘s counsel asked whether any jurors would be unable to award damages for pain and suffering or for future medical expenses, or whether there was any juror who thought, “I don‘t think I could be a fair and impartial juror on this kind of case.” App. 105. Prospective juror Regina Whipple, who was later selected as the jury foreperson, answered no to each of these questions. See id., at 83, 89, 105.
Trial commenced, and the jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of Shauers. Shortly thereafter, one of the jurors contacted Warger‘s counsel to express concern over juror Whipple‘s conduct. The complaining juror subsequently signed an affidavit claiming that Whipple had spoken during deliberations about “a motor vehicle collision in which her daughter was at fault for the collision and a man died,” and had “related that if her daughter had been sued, it would have ruined her life.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a–41a.
Relying on this affidavit, Warger moved for a new trial. He contended that Whipple had deliberately lied during voir dire about her impartiality and ability to award damages. Thus, he asserted, he had satisfied the requirements of McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U. S. 548 (1984), which holds that a party may “obtain a new trial” if he “demonstrate[s] that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and . . . that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Id., at 556.
The District Court refused to grant a new trial, holding that the only evidence that supported Warger‘s motion, the complaining juror‘s affidavit, was barred by
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. 721 F. 3d 606 (2013). It first held that Warger‘s proffered evidence did not fall within the “extraneous prejudicial evidence” exception set forth in
We granted certiorari, 571 U. S. ___ (2014), and now affirm.
II
We hold that
This understanding of the text of
Some versions of the rule were narrower than others. Under what was sometimes known as the “Iowa” approach, juror testimony regarding deliberations was excluded only to the extent that it related to matters that “‘inhere[d] in the verdict,‘” which generally consisted of evidence of the jurors’ subjective intentions and thought processes in reaching a verdict. 3 C. Mueller & L. Kirk
But other courts applied a broader version of the anti-impeachment rule. Under this version, sometimes called the “federal” approach, litigants were prohibited from using evidence of jury deliberations unless it was offered to show that an “extraneous matter” had influenced the jury. See 3 Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence §6:16, at 71; Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates, 56 F. R. D. 183, 265 (1973). The “great majority” of appellate courts applying this version of the rule held jury deliberations evidence inadmissible even if used to demonstrate dishonesty during voir dire. Wilson v. Wiggins, 54 Ariz. 240, 246, 94 P. 2d 870, 872 (1939); see, e.g., Willis v. Davis, 333 P. 2d 311, 314 (Okla. 1958); Turner v. Hall‘s Adm‘x, 252 S. W. 2d 30, 34 (Ky. 1952); Hinkel v. Oregon Chair Co., 80 Ore. 404, 406, 156 P. 438, 439 (1916); State v. Cloud, 130 La. 955, 958–960, 58 So. 827, 828–829 (1912); Payne v. Burke, 236 App. Div. 527, 528–530, 260 N. Y. S. 259, 260–262 (1932).
This Court occasionally employed language that might
Our subsequent decision in Clark v. United States, 289 U. S. 1 (1933), was consistent with our apparent rejection of the Iowa approach. In Clark, the Government had prosecuted for contempt a juror who, during voir dire in a prior case, had falsely denied knowing the defendant. Id., at 6–8. We held that the prosecution could introduce evidence of what had occurred during deliberations in the prior case, rejecting the juror‘s argument that these communications were privileged. We were careful to explain,
In any event, these decisions predated Congress’ enactment of
For those who consider legislative history relevant, here it confirms that this choice of language was no accident. Congress rejected a prior version of the
III
A
Seeking to rebut this straightforward understanding of
We are not persuaded. Warger, it seems, would restrict
B
Next, Warger contends that excluding jury deliberations evidence tending to show that a juror lied during voir dire is unnecessary to fulfill Congress’ apparent objectives of encouraging full and open debate in the jury room and preventing the harassment of former jurors. He observes that jurors remain free to, and may sometimes be forced to, disclose what happened in the jury room, and that ethical rules limit the ability of parties to harass jurors following trial. But these are arguments against
C
Nor do we accept Warger‘s contention that we must adopt his interpretation of
Given the clarity of both the text and history of
Moreover, any claim that
IV
We further hold, consonant with the Eighth Circuit, that the affidavit Warger sought to introduce was not admissible under
Generally speaking, information is deemed “extraneous” if it derives from a source “external” to the jury. See Tanner, 483 U. S., at 117. “External” matters include publicity and information related specifically to the case the jurors are meant to decide, while “internal” matters include the general body of experiences that jurors are understood to bring with them to the jury room. See id., at 117–119; 27 C. Wright & V. Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence §6075, pp. 520–521 (2d ed. 2007). Here, the excluded affidavit falls on the “internal” side of the line: Whipple‘s daughter‘s accident may well have informed her general views about negligence liability for car crashes, but it did not provide either her or the rest of the jury with any specific knowledge regarding Shauers’ collision with Warger.
Indeed, Warger does not argue that Whipple‘s statements related to “extraneous” information in this sense. Instead, he contends that because Whipple would have been disqualified from the jury had she disclosed her daughter‘s accident, any information she shared with the other jurors was extraneous.
We cannot agree that whenever a juror should have been excluded from the jury, anything that juror says is necessarily “extraneous” within the meaning of
Even if such a result were not precluded by Congress’ apparent intent to adopt the restrictive federal approach, it is foreclosed by Tanner, which relied upon the doctrine that “treat[s] allegations of the physical or mental incompetence of a juror as ‘internal’ rather than ‘external’ matters.” 483 U. S., at 118. Tanner cited, in particular, cases holding that evidence of jurors’ insanity, inability to understand English, and hearing impairments are all “internal” matters subject to exclusion under
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.