Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado

[de officiis]

Jury Secrecy Doesn’t Apply if Bias Taints Deliberations, Justices Rule

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that courts must make an exception to the usual rule that jury deliberations are secret when evidence emerges that those discussions were marred by racial or ethnic bias.

“Racial bias implicates unique historical, constitutional and institutional concerns,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the 5-to-3 decision.

The case arose from statements made during jury deliberations in a 2010 sexual assault trial. “I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want,” a juror said of the defendant, according to sworn statements from other jurors submitted by defense lawyers after the trial was over.

The juror, identified in court papers as H.C., was a former law enforcement officer. After the trial was over, two other jurors submitted sworn statements describing what he had said during deliberations. “He said that where he used to patrol, nine times out of 10 Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls,” one juror recalled.

This is a very interesting development. Usually, jury deliberations are sacrosanct and a verdict can't be impeached by extrinsic evidence of juror misconduct.

[Fife]

All I have had time to do so far is to scan the reporting of the opinions. http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/opini ... bias-case/

I'm looking forward to digging into the opinions in great depth; this has all the earmarks of being a very significant case.

My first take is: why should all of this stuff extend beyond voir dire into the jury room?

If there is any real sanctuary against the vagaries of the state, it is the jury room. We're in real trouble here, folks.