Abstract
Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) precludes juror testimony regarding deliberations, but contains an exception for "extraneous prejudicial information." A circuit split on the issue of what qualifies as "extraneous prejudicial information" has created dramatic inconsistency in the application of the Rule. This Note evaluates the role of juries, discusses the policy concerns on which the Rule is based, provides historical context for how the circuit split was created, highlights the pitfalls of the narrow interpretation of "extraneous prejudicial information," and makes a case for reform using state variations on the Federal Rule. I conclude that Rule 606(b) must be amended and that this can be done without undermining the policy concerns that have caused some circuits to be reluctant to implement change.
How to Cite
55 Ariz. L. Rev. 775 (2013)
2
Views
2
Downloads