Warger v. Shauers
Issues
May a party moving for a new trial use testimony about juror deliberations to show juror dishonesty during voir dire?
Upon the return of an unanimous verdict in favor of the defendant in a vehicular accident resulting in personal injury, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, alleging juror misconduct as a basis for a new trial. That motion relied on a juror’s testimony about statements made during the jury’s deliberation by the foreperson that suggested she had withheld information during the jury selection process. Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) (“FRE 606(b)”) allows the introduction of juror testimony only in very limited circumstances, and this case should determine whether the testimony offered here does or does not fall within one of those exceptions. This case has greater implications for the sanctity of jury deliberations, as well as the balance between the right of civil litigants to a fair trial and the importance of finality in verdicts. This decision should also clarify for lower federal courts the application of FRE 606(b).
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) permits a party moving for a new trial based on juror dishonesty during voir dire to introduce juror testimony about statements made during deliberations that tend to show the alleged dishonesty.
On August 4, 2006, Respondent Randy Shauers (Respondent’s) pick-up truck collided with the Petitioner Gregory Warger (Petitioner’s) motorcycle. See Brief for Petitioner at 4. Petitioner Warger required surgical amputation of his leg following the collision.
Edited by
Additional Resources
Stephen A. Miller:, Preview of the Supreme Court’s October Term in 2014, The Legal Intelligencer, (September 4, 2014).