## Facts

- Sylvester L. Peterson worked as Texas Southern University’s grant director, administering federal Title III grant funds.
- Peterson alleged disputes arose after he refused administrators’ requests he believed required unauthorized use of grant money.
- Peterson’s employment was terminated, and he sued TSU officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, alleging unconstitutional termination, including a substantive due process violation.
- In the first jury trial, the jury found for Peterson and awarded damages.
- About four months after the first verdict, the district judge granted the defendant’s motion for a new trial based on the judge’s ex parte, post-verdict conversations with jurors, concluding the jurors disregarded the court’s instructions; the court did not find the verdict against the great weight of the evidence.
- A second jury trial resulted in a defense verdict, and the district court entered a take-nothing judgment against Peterson.
- Peterson appealed, challenging the new-trial order and the resulting judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial based on ex parte, post-verdict juror statements about deliberations and alleged misunderstanding or disregard of instructions, contrary to Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b).
2. If the new-trial order was improper, what disposition was required as to the second trial’s verdict and the first verdict.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial based on post-verdict juror statements about internal deliberations and mental processes, which Rule 606(b) generally forbids using to impeach a verdict.
- The court rejected any characterization of the juror comments as “newly discovered evidence” capable of supporting a new trial.
- The court found no valid alternative basis in the record to sustain the new-trial order (e.g., a finding that the first verdict was against the great weight of the evidence).
- The court vacated the second trial’s verdict and judgment, reversed the new-trial order, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Peterson on the first jury verdict and to award appropriate costs, including attorneys’ fees and interest.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) bars using juror testimony or statements about internal deliberations and mental processes to impeach a verdict, subject to limited exceptions for extraneous prejudicial information or outside influence.
- A trial court may not set aside a verdict based on post-verdict juror communications offered to show the jury misunderstood or disregarded the court’s instructions.
- A new trial may not rest on ex parte, post-verdict juror discussions that are not part of the trial record and are not subject to adversarial testing.
- Discretion to grant a new trial is constrained by evidentiary rules; reliance on barred juror-deliberation evidence constitutes reversible error when it displaces a valid verdict and leads to an opposite outcome.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit required reinstatement of the first jury verdict because the district court’s new-trial order impermissibly relied on post-verdict juror statements about deliberations in violation of Rule 606(b), and the resulting second-trial defense judgment could not stand.


Peterson v. Wilson, 141 F.3d 573 (5th Cir. 1998)