Importance Of Voir Dire.

Federal Rules of Evidence, rule 606(b)(1) states that, “a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations,” and subdivision (b)(2)(A) states there is an exception in that a juror may testify whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention. In this negligence case, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Afterwards, the plaintiff moved for a new trial, armed with the declaration of a juror who said the foreperson revealed during deliberations that her daughter had been at fault in an accident and a lawsuit would have ruined her life. In the motion for new trial, plaintiff argued the foreperson lied in voir dire about her impartiality. The federal trial judge denied the motion for new trial, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court also affirmed, stating: “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. Here, the excluded affidavit falls on the ‘internal’ side.” (Warger v. Shauers (U.S. Sup. Ct.; December 9, 2014) ___U.S.___ [135 S.Ct. 521, 190 L.Ed.2d 422].)