Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Tanner v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureJury impeachmentFederal Rule of Evidence 606(b)Conspiracy to defraud the United StatesMail fraudRule 606(b)outside influenceextraneous influence

Facts

Seminole Electric borrowed over $1.1 billion through a loan guaranteed by the Rural Electrification Administration, and REA supervision and approval requirements applied to parts of the project. Conover, Seminole's procurement manager, helped Tanner obtain two patrol-road related contracts under specifications favorable to Tanner, despite their friendship and financial dealings. After conviction, petitioners moved for a new trial based on juror allegations that several jurors drank alcohol during lunch recesses, slept during trial, and later, according to a second juror affidavit, used marijuana and cocaine during trial. The district court refused to admit juror testimony under Rule 606(b), allowed petitioners to present nonjuror evidence, found that further juror inquiry was not required, and denied a new trial.

Issue

Does Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), or the Sixth Amendment, require a postverdict evidentiary hearing with juror testimony about jurors' alcohol and drug use during trial? Separately, does a conspiracy aimed at defrauding a federally supervised private borrower constitute a conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371?

Rule

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), juror testimony may not be used to impeach a verdict based on internal matters, and juror intoxication is not an "outside influence" within the rule's exception. A defendant's Sixth Amendment interest in a competent jury does not require postverdict juror testimony where other trial safeguards exist and the nonjuror showing is insufficient. Under 18 U.S.C. § 371, a conspiracy to defraud includes a conspiracy to impair, obstruct, or defeat a lawful governmental function, and it may be carried out through third parties, but the target of the conspiracy must still be the United States or one of its agencies, not merely a private entity receiving federal assistance and supervision.

🔒

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.

After a federal fraud trial in Denver, Omar Reyes is convicted. Two weeks later, a juror emails defense counsel saying that during several lunch breaks three jurors drank whiskey at a nearby restaurant and one of them often dozed during afternoon testimony; Omar offers no evidence from bailiffs, court staff, or anyone else.

If Omar moves for a new trial and asks the judge to question the jurors about the drinking and sleeping, how should the court rule?

Explanation. Rule 606(b) bars juror testimony to impeach a verdict based on internal matters. The majority treated juror intoxication, sleeping, and inattentiveness as internal rather than "outside influence." The Constitution also does not compel juror testimony where the defendant offers only this juror-based allegation and lacks sufficient nonjuror proof. (Derived from Tanner v. United States (1987).)