Statements of Jurors Not Enough to Warrant Further Investigation of Bias

USv. Birchette: Just last term, in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the Supreme Court created an exception to the general rule that a jury’s verdict cannot be impeached by testimony about deliberations from jurors when there is evidence that racial bias played  a part in the verdict. Birchette, an African-American, was charged with firearm and drug offenses. Shortly after the district court gave an Allen charge to the jury, an African-American juror asked to be released from duty, but didn’t explain why. Eleven minutes later the jury convicted Birchette on all counts. After the verdict, another African-American juror approached defense counsel and said he was “sorry they had to do that.” Another juror, a white woman, said that “the two of you are only doing this because of race” and that “we worked it all out.” One of those jurors (it’s unclear which) also told a defense paralegal that “I appreciate what y’all do” and, to the two African-American jurors, “It’s a race thing for you.” The district court rejected Birchette’s motion to further question the rest of the jurors, concluding that there was not good cause to do so because the reported statements “do not reflect racial bias against” Birchette.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Birchette’s conviction and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for further jury questioning. Noting that the Supreme Court had not said when parties must be able to investigator jurors when issues of racial bias arise, the court concluded that the Supreme Court had drawn a distinction between “statements exhibiting overt bias that casts serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations” and “offhand comment[s] indicating racial bias or hostility.” Only statements falling into the first category would allow for further investigation and the statements in this case did not meet that standard. The statements in this case fell short of the comments in Pena-Rodriguez, where a juror said “I think he did it because he’s Mexican.”

The court also held that the district court did not err in keeping Birchette from questioning one of the police officers involved about statements he made in a prior case. In the prior case the officer had acted in the believe he had reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment, but a court later found that he did not. The Fourth Circuit concluded that evidence of that disagreement wouldn’t shed any light on the officer’s truthfulness.