United States v. Benally

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008 · Evidence

546 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2008)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 606(b)Juror impeachment of verdictsRacial bias in deliberationsFed. R. Evid. 606(b)juror testimonyjury deliberationsracial bias

Facts

Benally, a Native American, submitted voir dire questions aimed at uncovering bias against Native Americans, and the judge asked whether his race would affect jurors' evaluation of the case and whether they had negative experiences with Native Americans; no juror answered yes. The day after the guilty verdict, Juror K.C. told defense counsel that during deliberations the foreman said that when Indians get alcohol they all get drunk and then violent, and another juror appeared to agree based on reservation experience. Juror K.C. also reported that some jurors discussed needing to send a message back to the reservation and that one juror relayed stories from family members in law enforcement. Benally moved for a new trial, relying on Juror K.C.'s affidavit and an investigator's affidavit recounting another juror's similar statements.

Issue

Does Rule 606(b) permit juror testimony about racist and other improper statements made during deliberations when offered to show voir dire dishonesty or to fit within the extraneous-information or outside-influence exceptions? If not, does the Sixth Amendment require an exception allowing such testimony to challenge the verdict?

Rule

Rule 606(b) bars juror testimony or affidavits about statements made during jury deliberations when offered to challenge the validity of the verdict, even if framed as proof that jurors were dishonest during voir dire. The rule's exceptions for extraneous prejudicial information and outside influence apply to external matters, not to internal deliberation comments, generalized prejudiced statements, or jurors' personal experiences unless they involve specific extra-record facts relating to the defendant or the incident. No implicit racial-bias exception exists under the rule, and the Sixth Amendment does not require one on these facts.

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 assault trial in Albuquerque, defendant Mateo Silva is convicted by a jury. Two days later, juror Erin Cole signs an affidavit stating that during deliberations another juror said, "Men from that tribe are violent by nature," and several jurors nodded in agreement before voting guilty.

If Silva moves for a new trial based solely on Erin's affidavit, how should the court rule on the affidavit's admissibility?

Explanation. Rule 606(b) bars juror testimony about statements occurring during deliberations when offered to challenge the verdict. Under the majority opinion, racist remarks made in the jury room are improper but still internal deliberation statements, not extraneous prejudicial information or outside influence. The court rejected any implicit racial-bias exception on these facts.