Is right to impartial jury violated by rule barring testimony on juror bias? SCOTUS to decide
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury may be violated by rules that bar evidence of statements made during jury deliberations.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether such “no-impeachment” rules are unconstitutional when they bar evidence of juror racial bias to challenge the verdict. Most states and the federal government have no-impeachment rules, according to the cert petition (PDF). The case was included in SCOTUSblog’s latest “relist watch.”
The petitioner, Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez, was convicted in Colorado state court for allegedly groping teenage sisters in a restroom at a horse-racing track. Pena-Rodriguez claimed it was a case of misidentification. Jurors convicted Pena-Rodriguez on charges of harassment and unlawful sexual contact, but were unable to agree on a felony charge of attempted sexual assault on a victim less than 15.
Two jurors told defense counsel that a juror identified as “H.C.” said during deliberations that Pena-Rodriguez was guilty because, in his experience as a former law-enforcement officer, “Mexican men had a bravado that caused them to believe they could do whatever they wanted with women.” The juror also allegedly said that the defendant committed the crime because “he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want.”
H.C. also allegedly said an alibi witness wasn’t credible because he was an “illegal,” even though the witness had testified he was in the United States legally.
The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on a 4-3 vote. The case is Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado.
