Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado

Supreme Court of the United States · 2017 · Evidence

580 U.S. 206 (2017)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidence606(b)racial bias exceptionRule 606(b)no-impeachment rulejury deliberationsracial animusracial stereotypes

Facts

Peña-Rodriguez was tried in Colorado on charges arising from an alleged sexual assault, and the empaneled jurors had stated during voir dire that they could be fair and impartial. After the jury convicted him of unlawful sexual contact and harassment, two jurors approached defense counsel and later gave sworn affidavits stating that Juror H. C. said Peña-Rodriguez was guilty because Mexican men have a bravado that makes them think they can do whatever they want with women, that Mexican men take whatever they want, and that Mexican men are often aggressive toward women and girls. The affidavits also stated that H. C. said he did not believe the defendant's alibi witness because the witness was "an illegal." The trial court acknowledged the apparent bias but refused to consider the affidavits because Colorado Rule 606(b) barred inquiry into statements made during deliberations.

Issue

Does the Sixth Amendment require an exception to the no-impeachment rule when a juror's statements during deliberations indicate that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in the juror's vote to convict? Put differently, may a trial court consider juror testimony about deliberation-room statements showing reliance on racial stereotypes or animus?

Rule

Where a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way so the trial court may consider that evidence. Before the bar is set aside, there must be a threshold showing that one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the deliberations and verdict, and the statement must tend to show that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in the juror's vote to convict.

🔒

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 criminal assault trial in Phoenix, Devin Cole was convicted by a jury. The next morning, two jurors independently emailed the court clerk stating that during deliberations another juror said, "Guys from his race are naturally violent, so of course he did this," and urged the panel to convict for that reason.

If Devin moves for a new trial and offers the jurors' sworn statements, should the trial court treat the no-impeachment rule as an absolute bar?

Explanation. The majority held that when a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires the no-impeachment rule to give way so the trial court may consider the evidence. Here, the juror's statement expressly links guilt to race and urges conviction on that basis, satisfying the constitutional exception.