Whether a no-impeachment rule constitutionally may bar evidence of juror bias when offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment to an impartial jury

QUESTION PRESENTED All states and the federal government have one version or another of an evidence rule that generally prohibits the introduction of juror testimony regarding statements made during deliberations when such statements are offered to challenge the jury’s verdict. These rules are known informally as the | “no impeachment” rules. ; The questions presented are: (1) whether a no-impeachment rule _ constitutionally may bar evidence of juror bias when offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment to an impartial jury, that is, juror bias which is so extreme that almost by definition the jury trial right has been abridged; and (2) can constitutional exceptions to the “no-impeachment” rule be limited to evidence of racial bias only without violating the equal protection clause of the 14 Amendment. . Specifically; do the following statements amount to juror bias so extreme that almost by definition, the jury trial right has been abridged? 1. “I don’t care what they say ifa man won't testify for himself, he is guilty.” __ 2. “Mr. Larson’s attorney said Mr. Larson was not going to testify for himself. That showed Mr. Larson was guilty of the crime.” : . \ 3. “If he won't testify for himself, he must be guilty.” i 4. “I[remember Joe announcing that if Larson did not take the stand in his own defense, he was guilty and the other three jurors, the ballet dancer, the fireman from Ester and the tall light-haired man all agreeing.” 5. “We’re supposed to look at everything, his wife’s not in the court room supporting him, shows he is guilty.” 6. “She can’t even support him in the courtroom, he must be guilty.” 7. “She couldn’t be in the courtroom because she could no look him in the eye, so he must be guilty.” ii