Harden v. Hillman

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021 · Evidence

993 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2021)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceFederal Rule of Evidence 606(b)no-impeachment ruleracial biasjuror affidavitsPena-Rodriguezcivil casesRemmer hearing

Facts

Harden went to a Thorntons store after drinking earlier that evening, was refused beer by the clerk, and was told by Officer Hillman, who was providing store security, to leave and not return. Harden later reentered the store to buy chips, and Hillman then physically detained and arrested him; Harden was later cited for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and public intoxication. Before trial on Harden’s remaining excessive-force claim, the Marshals Service did not serve Harden’s civil subpoenas absent a court order, and some witnesses did not appear after later service by a process server. After the jury returned a verdict for Hillman, a juror affidavit alleged that jurors used racial stereotypes about Harden and his legal team during deliberations and that one juror also misstated the law and had concealed a police-family connection during voir dire.

Issue

Whether summary judgment was proper on Harden’s claim that Hillman arrested him without probable cause; whether the district court properly denied a new trial based on subpoena-service problems and alleged improper defense argument; and whether Rule 606(b) barred consideration of a juror affidavit alleging racial bias during deliberations in this civil case. Relatedly, the court had to decide whether the constitutional exception recognized in Pena-Rodriguez applies in civil cases and, if so, whether the affidavit required further inquiry.

Rule

Probable cause exists when facts and circumstances known to the officer would warrant a prudent person in believing an offense has been committed, and the arrest is valid if probable cause existed for any offense supported by the facts, regardless of the officer’s stated reason. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), juror testimony about deliberations is generally inadmissible, but the no-impeachment rule must give way in civil cases when there is a clear statement indicating that one or more jurors relied on racial stereotypes or animus and that racial bias was a significant motivating factor in the verdict. When a juror affidavit raises a colorable claim of such racial bias, the district court must conduct a Remmer hearing at which the parties may question jurors, and a new trial is required if racial bias prejudicially affected deliberations.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a civil battery trial in Cincinnati, juror Maya Ortiz signs an affidavit stating that during deliberations two jurors said the Black plaintiff was "probably a crack dealer" and only sued "to get easy money," and that they dismissed his lawyer's arguments by calling the plaintiff's all-Black trial team "a TV sitcom cast." The verdict was for the defendant.

How should the district court most likely rule on the defendant's motion to exclude the affidavit under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)?

Explanation. The majority held that Rule 606(b)'s no-impeachment rule must give way in civil cases when there is a clear statement indicating that jurors relied on racial stereotypes or animus and that racial bias was a significant motivating factor in the verdict. Comments characterizing a Black party as a crack user and dismissing an African American legal team through racially coded references are the kind of overt racial-bias allegations that trigger the exception and require further inquiry.