In McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 553 (1984), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a litigant is entitled to a fair trial and not a perfect one because there is no such thing as a perfect trial. When allegations of juror misconduct arise, prompting claims of an unfair trial, courts are reluctant to pierce the secrecy of the jury deliberation process. The language of the rule governing juror impeachment only allows testimony from jurors in three discrete circumstances. This article examines two recent cases, each from a different federal circuit court of appeals, where there was an allegation of juror misconduct. The petitioners sought review by the Supreme Court to determine whether an evidentiary hearing regarding the alleged misconduct was required.

 

Because the results of these cases were inconsistent with each other, I argue in this article that a circuit split exists that should have been addressed by the Supreme Court had the cases been granted certiorari. Further, I argue that a clearly worded and uniform standard—one that is applied by all federal courts—will alleviate any distinctions in how the standard is applied. Finally, I argue that the denial of a post-trial evidentiary hearing seeking to address claims of juror misconduct invokes a constitutional right.

 

Juror misconduct is a serious allegation that deserves a meaningful remedy. Despite fears that post-trial investigation will uproot the jury system, juror impeachment is necessary to ensure that the minimum requirements established by due process and the Sixth Amendment are met to provide a fair trial.