On Monday, the US Supreme Court agreed to review whether the juror's claims of racially charged comments made by another juror expressed racial bias against a Latino defendant during deliberations.
The top court will hear an appeal from Miguel Angel Peña Rodriguez, a Hispanic man in Colorado, who was convicted with harassment charges and sex assault. According to USA News, Rodriguez said he did not have a fair trial because a juror made a derogatory comment about Mexicans.
The current case revolves around the issue whether statements made by a third juror during deliberations can be so offensive that they could affect the decision of the jury, reports The Denver Post. The state of Colorado tried to dissuade the court from taking up the case by disputing that there was overwhelming evidences against Peña and that no juror suggested that the derogatory comments persuaded and affected anyone else.
Most states and the federal government include a "no impeachment" rule of evidence, which generally prohibits the introduction of juror testimony regarding statements made in the event of deliberations when offered to challenge the verdict made by the jury. Among the groups who support Peña are the National Congress of American Indians and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. They helped the judges with examples of other trials in which jurors made an offensive statement about African-American, Hispanic, and Native American Defendants.
Latino Fox News reported that the top court has been unwilling to intrude on deliberations, although Justice Sonia Sotomayor proposed a footnote to her opinion in a 2014 case that it is possible for an extreme juror bias to affect a jury trial.
All states will be required to have a racial bias exception to its no impeachment rule, if the top court overturns a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court and other courts denying Peña's appeal.
