Opinion
Case No. CV 01-2995 ER (AJWx)
July 25, 2002
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVIEW JURORS
The Court has read and considered the papers filed in connection with Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Leave to Interview Jurors, and has reached the following CONCLUSIONS:
Fed.R.Evid. 606(b) prohibits all post-verdict inquiries into a juror's deliberative process. See also Smith v. Cupp, 457 F.2d 1098, 1100 (9th Cir. 1972) (holding that "neither a trial court nor an appellate court has the authority to inquire into the jury's decisional processes, even when information pertaining to the deliberations is volunteered by one of the jurors"). At least five policy considerations are furthered by such a prohibition: (1) discouraging harassment of jurors by losing parties eager to have the verdict set aside; (2) encouraging free and open discussion among jurors; (3) reducing incentives for jury tampering; (4) promoting verdict finality; and (5) maintaining the viability of the jury as a judicial decisionmaking body.See United States v. Stansfield, 101 F.3d 909 (3d Cir. 1996); see also McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 267 (1914) (holding that allowing juror interviews would "make what was intended to be a private deliberation, the constant subject of public investigation — to the destruction of all frankness and freedom of discussion and conference").
Rule 606(b) creates an exception for inquiries concerning extraneous information and outside influences on the jury, so long as such inquiry does not touch on the actual effect of the outside intrusions. See United States v. Simpson, 950 F.2d 1519 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that juror may testify as to " whether any extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to bear" on juror deliberations, but "a juror may not testify as to the effect the outside information had upon the juror"). The Supreme Court, however, has interpreted the "outside influence" exception to Rule 606(b) very narrowly. See Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987) (holding that Rule 606(b) prevented inquiry into the veracity of statement by juror that several jurors consumed alcohol sufficient to cause them to sleep during trial because instances of substance abuse are not "outside" or "extraneous" influences that can impeach a jury verdict). After Tanner, Rule 606(b) prohibits inquiry as to "at least four topics: (1) the method or arguments of the jury's deliberations, (2) the effect of any particular thing upon an outcome in the deliberations, (3) the mindset or emotions of any juror during deliberation, and (4) the testifying juror's own mental process during the deliberations." United States v. Ruggiero, 56 F.3d 647, 652 (5th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff here has not alleged that the jurors were exposed to any extraneous information or outside influences that would justify inquiry under Rule 606(b). Instead, Plaintiff has stated to the Court during trial and has reiterated in correspondence to Defendant that one of the grounds on which it will base a motion for a new trial is that Defendant's reference to Plaintiff in closing arguments as a multi-billion dollar corporation controlling 90% of the test-set market was an impermissible attempt to sway the jury on the basis of sympathy. Plaintiff states in its ex parte application that it "seeks to conduct juror interviews. . . in order to assess the impact of Defendant's arguments." Under Rule 606(b) as well as Tanner and its progeny, such inquiry is improper and will not be allowed because it seeks information on the jurors' deliberative processes. Defendant's closing arguments clearly are not "outside" or "extraneous" influences that can impeach the jury's verdict. Therefore, Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Leave to Interview Jurors is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve, by United States mail or by telefax or by email, copies of this Order on counsel for the parties in this matter.