Pennsylvania Code
Pennsylvania Code & Bulletin
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

• No statutes or acts will be found at this website.

The Pennsylvania Bulletin website includes the following: Rulemakings by State agencies; Proposed Rulemakings by State agencies; State agency notices; the Governor’s Proclamations and Executive Orders; Actions by the General Assembly; and Statewide and local court rules.

PA Bulletin, Doc. No. 07-1785

THE COURTS

Title 225--RULES
OF EVIDENCE

ARTICLE VI. WITNESSES

[235 PA. CODE ART. VI]

Order Approving Amendments to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 606; No. 424; Supreme Court Rules; Doc. No. 1

[37 Pa.B. 5247]
[Saturday, September 29, 2007]

Order

Per Curiam:

   Now, this 17th day of September 2007, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Rules of Evidence,

   It Is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Pa.R.E. 606 is hereby revised in the following form.

   This Order shall be processed immediately in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. 103(b), and shall be effective October 17, 2007.

Annex

TITLE 225.  RULES OF EVIDENCE

PART VI.  WITNESSES

Rule 606.  Competency of Juror as Witness.

   (a)  At the [Trial] trial. A member of the jury may not testify as a witness before that jury in the trial of the case in which the juror is sitting. If the juror is called so to testify, the opposing party shall be afforded an opportunity to object out of the presence of the jury.

   (b)  Inquiry into [Validity of Verdict] validity of verdict. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict, including a sentencing verdict pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711 (relating to capital sentencing proceedings), 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 in reaching a decision upon the verdict or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith, and a juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror about any of these subjects may not be received. However, a juror may testify concerning whether prejudicial facts not of record, and beyond common knowledge and experience, were improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror.

Comment

*      *      *      *      *

   Note that section (a) bars a jury member from testifying ''before that jury in the trial of the case in which the juror is sitting.'' The phrase ''before that jury'' did not appear in the preliminary draft of F.R.E. 606(a); its addition leads to the conclusion that a juror may testify outside the presence of the rest of the jury on matters occurring during the course of the trial. 3 Weinstein & Berger, Evidence ¶ 606[02], at 606-18; see also United States v. Robinson, 645 F.2d 616 (8th Cir. 1981) (holding that on motion for mistrial, F.R.E. 606 did not bar juror from testifying, out of presence of other jurors, concerning his observation of accused being escorted from court house under guard); United States v. Day, 830 F.2d 1099 (10th Cir. 1987) (stating that during course of trial, juror could have been called to testify regarding whether bias arose from remarks between juror and investigating F.B.I. agent). Current Pennsylvania law is in accord. See Commonwealth v. Santiago, 456 Pa. 265, 318 A.2d 737 (1974) (jurors permitted to testify at hearing in chambers during trial on question of whether they received improper prejudicial information).

*      *      *      *      *

   Pennsylvania cases have also recognized the first two exceptions to juror incompetency set forth in the second sentence of Pa.R.E. 606(b). [Carter v. U.S. Steel Corp., 529 Pa. 409, 604 A.2d 1010 (1992).] Pratt v. St. Christopher's Hospital, 866 A.2d 313 (Pa. 2005); Commonwealth v. Williams, supra; Welshire v. Bruaw, 331 Pa. 392, 200 A.2d 67 (1938). Note that when jurors are permitted to testify about facts not of record and outside influences, they may not be questioned about the effect upon them of what was improperly brought to their attention. See [Carter, supra;] 3 Weinstein & Berger, Evidence ¶ 606[5] at pp. 606-53--606-55. Pa.R.E. 606(b) does not recognize the third exception to juror incompetency that appears in F.R.E. 606(b)--permitting juror testimony about whether there was a mistake in entering the verdict onto the verdict form. Pennsylvania law deals with possible mistakes in the verdict form by permitting the polling of the jury prior to the recording of the verdict. If there is no concurrence, the jury is directed to retire for further deliberations. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 648(G); City of Pittsburgh v. DiNardo, 410 Pa. 376, 189 A. 2d 886 (1963); Barefoot v. Penn Central Transportation Co., 226 Pa. Super. 558, 323 A.2d 271 (1974). Pa.R.E. 606(b) does not purport to set forth the substantive grounds for setting aside verdicts because of an irregularity.

FINAL REPORT

Rule 606(b): Competency of Juror as Witness

Revision of Comment

   The Committee continues to examine the federal rules of evidence and rules from other states to determine whether our rules of evidence should be changed. Realizing that the profession is aware that our rules are modeled on the federal rules, changes in those rules may mislead some to assume that such changes apply to our rules as well. Hence, when F.R.E. 606(b) was amended recently to permit the Court to hear testimony of a juror regarding a mistake in entering the verdict in the verdict form, the Committee seeks to clarify that our rule contains no such change.

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 07-1785. Filed for public inspection September 28, 2007, 9:00 a.m.]


No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.