Lexplug logoLexplug

Tanner v. United States

Supreme Court of United States
483 U.S. 107 (1987)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), juror testimony regarding alcohol or drug use by other jurors during trial is inadmissible to impeach a verdict because such conduct is not considered an "outside influence."


Facts:

  • William Conover was the procurement manager for Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Seminole), which had received a $1.1 billion loan from a federal bank, guaranteed by the Rural Electrification Administration (REA), a federal agency.
  • The loan agreement gave the REA supervisory power over the construction project funded by the loan, including approval of certain contracts and bidding procedures.
  • Conover learned that Seminole's contractor was having difficulty building a patrol road and subsequently contacted his friend, Anthony Tanner, who owned a limerock mine.
  • Conover's procurement department prepared specifications for the road and fill material contracts that were favorable to Tanner's company.
  • Tanner was awarded both contracts, totaling over $1.5 million, paid for with the REA-guaranteed loan funds.
  • During the same period, Conover and Tanner engaged in personal business deals, including a landscaping contract and a loan from Tanner to Conover for a condominium purchase.
  • After problems arose with Tanner's work, an internal investigation by Seminole revealed Conover's conflict of interest, leading to his suspension and demotion.

Procedural Posture:

  • William Conover and Anthony Tanner were indicted in federal court for conspiracy to defraud the United States and mail fraud.
  • Their first trial resulted in a hung jury, and a mistrial was declared.
  • Following a second trial, a jury convicted Conover on all counts and Tanner on all but one count.
  • Before sentencing, the defendants filed a motion for a new trial based on an unsolicited call from a juror alleging that other jurors consumed alcohol during lunch breaks and slept through the trial.
  • The District Court denied the motion, ruling that juror testimony on intoxication was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b).
  • The defendants filed a second new trial motion based on a sworn statement from another juror detailing widespread alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine use by several jurors during the trial.
  • The District Court denied the second motion as well.
  • The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, with the defendants as appellants and the United States as appellee, affirmed the convictions.
  • The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) bar a juror from testifying in a post-verdict evidentiary hearing about alcohol and drug use by other jurors during the trial?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice O’Connor

Yes, Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) bars juror testimony about substance use by fellow jurors during the trial. The rule prohibits jurors from testifying about any matter occurring during deliberations or about the mental processes of any juror, with an exception only for extraneous prejudicial information or improper outside influence. The legislative history of Rule 606(b) demonstrates with uncommon clarity that Congress specifically considered and rejected a version that would have allowed testimony on juror misconduct during deliberations, explicitly including the drunken condition of a fellow juror. Voluntary ingestion of alcohol or drugs by a juror is an internal matter, akin to a virus or lack of sleep, not an "outside influence" like a bribe or exposure to prejudicial news reports. While defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to a competent jury, this right is protected through other means like voir dire, observation by court and counsel during trial, and the ability of jurors to report misconduct before a verdict is rendered.


Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Marshall

No, Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) should not bar testimony about juror intoxication because such conduct is not part of the jury's deliberations and severely undermines the constitutional right to a competent jury. Rule 606(b) is designed to protect the privacy of deliberations, but the alleged drug and alcohol use occurred during lunch recesses, outside of deliberations. Furthermore, even if the Rule applied, the use of intoxicants should be considered an "outside influence" that impairs a juror's ability to function. Denying an evidentiary hearing in the face of sworn allegations of rampant and debilitating drug and alcohol abuse denigrates the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by a capable and unimpaired jury. The other safeguards mentioned by the majority are insufficient to detect this kind of misconduct.



Analysis:

This decision significantly reinforces the finality of jury verdicts and the privacy of jurors by narrowly construing the "outside influence" exception in Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b). By classifying juror intoxication and substance abuse as an internal matter, the Court makes it exceptionally difficult for defendants to challenge verdicts based on such misconduct, even when the allegations are severe. The ruling prioritizes the stability of the jury system and the protection of jurors from post-verdict harassment over the ability to correct a verdict potentially rendered by incompetent jurors. This precedent solidifies a high barrier for impeaching verdicts based on the jurors' physical or mental state during the trial, forcing litigants to rely on non-juror evidence, which is often difficult or impossible to obtain.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Tanner v. United States (1987)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"