McDonald v. Pless

Supreme Court of the United States · 1915 · Evidence

238 U.S. 264 (1915)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceJuror impeachment of verdictQuotient verdictjuror incompetencyimpeaching verdictjury deliberationspublic policynew trial

Facts

Pless & Winbourne sued McDonald for $4,000 for legal services, and a jury returned a verdict of $2,916 for the plaintiffs. McDonald moved to set aside the verdict, alleging that the foreman proposed that each juror write down an amount, that the amounts be totaled and divided by 12, and that the quotient would be the verdict; all jurors allegedly agreed. According to the motion, some jurors objected after the calculation, especially because three jurors had written $5,000 even though the suit sought only $4,000, but others insisted the jury was bound by its prior agreement and the quotient verdict was returned. A juror was sworn at the hearing on the motion, but the court refused to allow him to testify on the ground that a juror was incompetent to impeach his own verdict.

Issue

May a losing party obtain a new trial by using the testimony or affidavit of a juror to show that the jury reached its verdict through misconduct during deliberations, specifically by agreeing in advance to a quotient verdict? Also, does the federal court's power to inquire into juror conduct depend on state practice under the Conformity Act?

Rule

The general rule is that, when a private party seeks a new trial, jurors may not testify or submit affidavits to impeach their own verdict by recounting misconduct occurring in the jury room. This rule rests on public policy protecting the finality of verdicts and the privacy and freedom of jury deliberations, even though it may exclude proof of actual misconduct; the Conformity Act does not control the federal court's power to regulate inquiry into juror conduct.

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 federal civil breach-of-contract trial in Denver, Nora Benton lost to Alpine Summit Builders and moved for a new trial. She offered sworn affidavits from two jurors stating that, during deliberations, the jurors agreed in advance to total each person's damages figure, divide by twelve, and return that number as the verdict.

How should the federal court rule on Nora's motion insofar as it relies on the jurors' affidavits?

Explanation. The majority held that the general rule bars a losing private party from using juror testimony or affidavits to impeach the verdict by recounting misconduct during deliberations. The Court assumed such a method would be arbitrary and unjust if proved, but still excluded the juror evidence on public-policy grounds protecting finality and the privacy of deliberations.