## Facts

- Gregory P. Warger, a motorcyclist, was severely injured in a collision with a truck driven by Randy D. Shauers; Warger’s injuries ultimately required amputation of his left leg.
- Warger sued Shauers for negligence in federal district court.
- During voir dire, Warger’s counsel asked prospective jurors whether they could fairly award damages for pain and suffering and future medical expenses; the eventual foreperson, Regina Whipple, answered that she could be fair and impartial.
- The jury returned a defense verdict for Shauers.
- After the verdict, another juror provided an affidavit stating that, during deliberations, Whipple discussed a prior accident involving her daughter (who was at fault) in which a man died, and said that if her daughter had been sued it would have ruined her life.
- Warger argued the affidavit showed Whipple concealed bias and lied during voir dire, and sought a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) bars juror testimony about statements made during deliberations when offered to show that another juror lied during voir dire.
2. Whether a juror’s discussion of personal life experiences during deliberations qualifies as “extraneous prejudicial information” or an “outside influence” under Rule 606(b)(2).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Eighth Circuit.
- Rule 606(b) barred the affidavit because it concerned statements made during deliberations and was offered in a proceeding seeking to invalidate the verdict.
- A motion for new trial based on alleged voir dire dishonesty is an “inquiry into the validity of a verdict” within the meaning of Rule 606(b).
- The Rule 606(b)(2) exceptions did not apply because the statements reflected a juror’s personal experiences and views, not extraneous information about the case or an improper outside influence.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)(1), during an inquiry into the validity of a verdict, a juror generally may not testify about deliberation statements or incidents, the effect on any juror’s vote, or jurors’ mental processes.
- The Rule’s application turns on whether the proceeding may invalidate the verdict, not on the particular theory offered to set the verdict aside (including claims of dishonesty during voir dire).
- Rule 606(b)(2) permits juror testimony only for: (1) extraneous prejudicial information improperly brought to the jury’s attention; (2) an outside influence improperly brought to bear on a juror; or (3) a mistake in entering the verdict on the verdict form.
- A juror’s personal experiences and generalized views do not constitute “extraneous prejudicial information” or an “outside influence” for purposes of Rule 606(b)(2).
- Claims of juror bias are primarily addressed through voir dire, observation of jurors during trial, and non-juror evidence obtained after verdict, rather than post-verdict probing of deliberations.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Rule 606(b) bars using juror testimony about deliberations to prove another juror lied during voir dire, and that a juror’s reliance on personal experiences does not trigger the Rule’s exceptions, leaving the defense verdict intact.


Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40 (2014)