Beckway v. DeShong et al

Filing 334

ORDER REGARDING FURTHER DECLARATION OF BARON J. DREXEL. Signed by Judge Thelton Henderson on 4/17/12. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

BRENT BECKWAY,

6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY PAUL DESHONG, et al.,

NO. C07-5072 TEH
ORDER REGARDING
FURTHER DECLARATION OF
BARON J. DREXEL

Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
On Monday, April 16, 2012, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for a new

12 trial. The matter was argued and submitted. The following day, Baron J. Drexel, counsel for
13 the Plaintiff, filed a further declaration with the Court. In his declaration, he detailed his
14 conversations with the jurors who had rendered a verdict in this matter. For several reasons,
15 the Court declines to consider this declaration.
16

First, the filing is untimely. If counsel believed his conversations with jurors to be

17 relevant to his motion for a new trial, he had the opportunity to raise these issues in the
18 motion itself, or in his reply to defense counsel’s opposition to the motion. He had the
19 opportunity to raise the issues orally, at the hearing held on April 16, 2012. Having not been
20 timely raised, the Court rejects as untimely the contentions contained in this filing.
21

Even if the Court were to consider the declaration, there are further evidentiary issues

22 barring the Court from relying on the contents of this declaration in making a ruling. Beyond
23 the fact that the statements of jurors contained in this filing are hearsay, they are further
24 barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which states,
25
26
27
28

Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not
testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's
deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or
emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or
indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith.
But a juror may testify about (1) whether extraneous prejudicial information
was improperly brought to the jury's attention, (2) whether any outside

1
2

influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror, or (3) whether there
was a mistake in entering the verdict onto the verdict form. A juror's affidavit
or evidence of any statement by the juror may not be received on a matter
about which the juror would be precluded from testifying.

3
Rule 606(b) offers a standard governing not only testimony, but any statement made
4
by a juror after the verdict has been reached–including affidavits and also less formal
5
writings, such as letters. When such evidence is submitted, the Court must review the
6
writing under the same standard as would be applied were the statement spoken live, in court.
7
This means that “the district court must examine this material to decide whether it falls
8
within the categories of admissible juror testimony permitted by Rule 606(b). Rule 606(b)
9
permits testimony only on the questions of ‘whether extraneous prejudicial information was
improperly brought to the jury's attention’ and ‘whether any outside influence was
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
improperly brought to bear on any juror.’” Hard v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 870 F.2d
12
1454, 1461 (9th Cir. 1989). Testimony regarding the motivation of a juror or jury in reaching
13
a verdict is barred under 606(b): “Testimony of a juror concerning the motives of individual
14
jurors and conduct during deliberation is not admissible. Juror testimony is admissible only
15
concerning facts bearing on extraneous influences on the deliberation, in the sense of overt
16
acts of jury tampering.” United States v. Pimentel, 654 F.2d 538, 542 (9th Cir.1981) .
17
The statements of the jurors brought by declaration do not fall into any exception to
18
the Rule 606 bar on juror testimony regarding the deliberative process. The remarks of
19
defense counsel, invoked by Mr. Drexel as the reason for his filing, are similarly barred, and
20
the Court shall therefore consider none of the representations made as to the jury’s
21
deliberative process in coming to its decision. The filing of Mr. Drexel is hereby
22
REJECTED, as both untimely and barred by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
Dated: 4/17/12
27

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

28
2