No-impeachment rule: Difference between revisions

The no-impeachment rule (also known as the non-impeachment rule) is a rule in the procedural law of many jurisdictions. It says testimony from jurors about what occurred during jury deliberations may not be used to impeach a verdict during an appeal. The rule originated in common law and has been codified into statute in many jurisdictions.

The United States Federal Rules of Evidence, section 606(b)^[1] defines it as:

(1) Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence. During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’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 of evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters.

(2) Exceptions. A juror may testify about whether:

(A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention; (B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or (C) a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form.

Under common law, jurors were forbidden from impeaching their own verdict. Some states adopted a more limited version of the no-impeachment rule, known as the "Iowa rule" which "prevented jurors from testifying only about their own subjective beliefs, thoughts, or motives during delibera­tions."^[2]

The Federal rule has been adopted into the law of 42 jurisdictions. The Iowa rule has been adopted in 9 jurisdiction.^[2]

The United States Supreme Court created a racial bias exception to the rule in their decision in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado.

This legal term article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e