no-impeachment rule in Pennsylvania

2023“Approximately two weeks later, the trial court received a letter from one of the jurors (Juror 10) indicating that, during deliberations, she had learned from several other jurors that they had discussed the case with outside medical professionals, who were friends, relatives and/or personal ____________________________________________ 6 See, e.g., Peña-Rodriguez, 580 U.S. at 225 (holding: “where a juror makes a clear statement that indicates he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in

2023“Approximately two weeks later, the trial court received a letter from one of the jurors (Juror 10) indicating that, during deliberations, she had learned from several other jurors that they had discussed the case with outside medical professionals, who were friends, relatives and/or personal ____________________________________________ 6 See, e.g., Peña-Rodriguez, 580 U.S. at 225 (holding: “where a juror makes a clear statement that indicates he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in

2018See also Pa.R.E. 606(b) (during inquiry into validity of verdict, juror may only testify about whether prejudicial information not of record and that which is beyond common knowledge and experience was improperly brought to jury’s attention, or if outside influence improperly brought to bear on any juror). 2 In fact, in Tharpe v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 545 (2018), the United States Supreme Court recently stated that because Pena-Rodriguez “permits a trial court ‘to consider [certain] evidence,’ . . . and does not alte[r] the range of -2- J-S12003-18 Before we can address the merits of Smart’s iss

2017Christopher’s Hosp., 866 A.2d 313, 320 (Pa. 2005) (footnotes omitted).

2017See also Pratt, supra at 325 (noting that the clear purposes of the no-impeachment rule are “to discourage harassment of jurors by losing parties, encourage free and open discussion among jurors, - 18 - J-S31017-17 reduce incentives for jury tampering, promote verdict finality, and maintain the viability of the jury as a judicial decision-making body.”).

2005Furthermore, the court indicated that, since the information discussed in the extraneous communications was amply covered in the presentation of the parties’ respective cases at trial, it was not prejudicial. 4 Cf. Friedman v. Ralph Bros., Inc., 314 Pa. 247 , 171 A. 900, 901 (1934) (holding that a jury foreman’s unauthorized view of an accident scene, coupled with his taking of distance measurements “could not have influenced the jury, for it appears the distances were all in evidence and all the facts which the jury may have reported were properly before the jury”).

2005Furthermore, the court indicated that, since the information discussed in the extraneous communications was amply covered in the presentation of the parties’ respective cases at trial, it was not prejudicial. 4 Cf. Friedman v. Ralph Bros., Inc., 314 Pa. 247 , 171 A. 900, 901 (1934) (holding that a jury foreman’s unauthorized view of an accident scene, coupled with his taking of distance measurements “could not have influenced the jury, for it appears the distances were all in evidence and all the facts which the jury may have reported were properly before the jury”).