Try googling 'juror testimony verdict impeachment' as a collection of words.
There's also the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule
606:
(b) During an Inquiry into the Validity of a Verdict or
Indictment.
(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’s
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 or 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.
It seems it would be kind of
hard to impeach a verdict based on deliberations when none of the jurors can
testify. You could wonder whether or not one juror's experiences with a personal
patent endeavor qualifies as extraneous and prejudicial information. It's
certainly not testimony presented during the course of the trial or the law as
presented by the court (model jury instructions 9th District, What is not
evidence):
(4) Anything you may have seen or heard when the court
was not in session is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the
evidence received at the trial.
From the second juror's comments
in the press the first juror's personal experiences shared with the jury appears
to have influenced the out come. The question being whether or not that was
improper secondary to the question of whether or not the issue will come up at
all.
There's also the risk in ignoring the jury instructions of
misinterpreting what is valid evidence (from the above model instructions, What
is not evidence):
(1) Arguments and statements by lawyers are not
evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. What they have said in their opening
statements, [will say in their] closing arguments, and at other times is
intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the
facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers have stated them,
your memory of them controls.
The bit in news reports that the
juror found Apple's presentation persuasive. Was that testimony (which is
evidence) or arguments and statements by lawyers?
You could wonder if a jury
whose foreman says they didn't read the instructions confined their
deliberations to weighing evidence (also in light of the potential influence of
a juror's personal patent experience influencing jury deliberations).
Like
making sausage jury deliberations may perhaps best remain behind closed doors.
As the result of post trial statements we as casual observers are left
questioning the validity of jury findings. Whether that amounts to anything
remains to be seen and hinges on the accuracy of reporting and a basis for the
court to take notice.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
