Witness Examination and Witness Qualification Flashcards
FRE 601 Competence to Testify in General
Every person is competent to be a witness unless these rules provide otherwise. But in civil cases, state law governs the witness’s competency regarding a claim or defense for which the state law supplies the rules of decision.
FRE 604 Interpreter
An interpreter must be qualified and must give an oath or affirmation to make a true translation
FRE 605 Judge’s Competency as a Witness
The presiding judge may not testify as a witness at the trial. A party need not object to preserve this issue
FRE 605 Explained
This is talking about if a judge asks a question in a way that makes it sound like he is on one of the parties’ sides
FRE 606(a) Juror’s Competency as a Witness
At the Trial
A juror may not testify as a witness before the other jurors at the trial. If a juror is called to testify, the court must give a party an opportunity to object outside the jury’s presence
FRE 606(b)(1) Juror’s Competency as a Witness
During the Inquiry Into the Validity of a Verdict or Indictment
Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence
During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or an indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations, the effect of anything on the jury’s or another juror’s vote, or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement about these matters.
FRE 606(b)(2) Juror’s Competency as a Witness
During the Inquiry Into the Validity of a Verdict or Indictment
Exceptions
A juror may testify about whether
- Extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention
- An outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror or
- A mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form
Sixth Amendment’s Requirement for Juries
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant an impartial jury
Privacy of Jury Deliberations
FRE 606(b)(1)’s prohibition reflects the notion that jury deliberations occur in a “black box” insulated from the light of outside review
Jury’s Privacy and the Confrontation Clause
In criminal cases, despite the exceptions, there are situations that raise constitutional concerns. Specifically, since juror misconduct can violate a defendant’s right to an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause, defendants seek to probe jury deliberations notwithstanding FRE 606’s limitations.
Tanner v. United States
1987
Facts and Procedural History
A few weeks after the verdict was returned, one of the jurors contacted defense counsel and told him that at the trial some of the male jurors were drinking everyday and “slept through the afternoons.” Despite these revelations, the district court refused to hold an evidentiary hearing. Several months later, these allegations were buttressed by a detailed report by another juror about rampant drug and alcohol abused by jury members. The district court again refused to hold a hearing and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. On appeal, the defendant argued the jurors’ testimony of alcohol and drug abuse was not prohibited by FRE 606(b) and an evidentiary hearing was compelled by the Sixth Amendment.
Tanner v. United States
1984
SCOTUS’s Reasoning
During the common law, courts admitted jurors’ testimony to impeach a jury’s verdict only if it concerned “external” influence on the jury. We protect jury deliberations
- To ensure the jury can freely deliberate without worrying about whether they will be questioned or harassed about it later
- To ensure verdicts are final and
- Because the judicial system could not withstand the scrutiny if we engaged in this type of review
Courts have used this internal/external distinction to identify those instances in which juror testimony impeaching a verdict would be admissible for years. A juror’s physical or mental incompetence is an internal matter
Tanner v. United States
1987
SCOTUS’s Ruling
SCOTUS said jurors cannot testify about inside influences and jurors using drugs and alcohol is an inside influence. This is supported by the common law and FRE 606’s legislative history. Also, the defendant’s Sixth Amendments rights were protected by voir dire, the jury’s visibility during trial, and the right to impeach a verdict with nonjuror testimony after the trial
Warger v. Shauer
2014
Facts
During jury selection, counsel for both sides conducted a lengthy voir dire of the prospective jurors. The plaintiff’s counsel asked whether any jurors would be unable to award damages for pain and suffering or for medical expenses, and whether there was any juror who thought, “I don’t think I could be a fair and impartial juror on this kind of case,” The jury foreperson answered no to both questions. Following the verdict, the plaintiff’s attorney was contacted by a jury member who related that the jury foreperson had improperly gained the sympathy of the other jurors. She allegedly did so by telling the other juries that her daughter had been in a similar type of car accident and that a verdict against her would have had a negative impact on her life had she been found responsible. The plaintiff’s attorney wanted to use this juror’s affidavit to raise a claim that the jury foreperson lied during voir dire
Warger v. Shauer
2014
SCOTUS’s Ruling
In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS rejected the plaintiff’s argument, holding that a post-verdict motion for a new trial on the ground of voir dire dishonesty “plainly entails an inquiry into the validity of the verdict.” This is because if a juror was dishonest during voir dire and an honest response would have provided a valid basis to challenge that juror for cause, the verdict must be invalidated.
