Warger v. Shauers (2013)

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2013 · Evidence

721 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2013)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 606(b)MistrialExpert testimonyjuror affidavitextraneous prejudicial informationvoir dire dishonestyin limine order

Facts

Warger was seriously injured when Shauers's truck and camper trailer clipped Warger's motorcycle, and Warger sued for negligence. The first trial ended in a mistrial after Shauers's attorney violated an in limine order barring experts from giving legal opinions about whether conduct violated South Dakota law. During the second trial, Shauers's attorney again violated that order by asking an expert whether Warger had to yield the right-of-way; the court sustained an objection, denied a mistrial, and instructed the jury to disregard the question. After the defense verdict, a juror submitted an affidavit alleging the foreperson relied on her daughter's prior accident experience and sympathy for the Shauers during deliberations.

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a mistrial after the second violation of the in limine order, by refusing to disturb the verdict based on alleged juror misconduct and claimed evidentiary insufficiency, or by excluding expert opinion on whether the drivers violated South Dakota traffic law?

Rule

A violation of an order granting a motion in limine warrants a new trial only when the order is specific, the violation is clear, and the violation results in prejudicial error or an unfair trial; prejudice means error that in all probability affected the verdict and harmed substantial rights. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), juror testimony or affidavits about statements during deliberations, their effect on votes, or jurors' mental processes are inadmissible to challenge a verdict, and the exception for 'extraneous prejudicial information' does not include jurors' personal experiences or alleged subjective bias. Expert testimony must rest on reliable principles and methods under Rule 702(c), and a district court may exclude expert opinions derived from evidence it finds unreliable.

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 civil battery trial in Omaha, the jury returned a defense verdict for Lena Ortiz. Two days later, juror Malik Benton signed an affidavit stating that during deliberations another juror said, based on her years caring for an injured brother, pain complaints are often exaggerated and damages awards can destroy families. The losing plaintiff, Erin Cole, moves for a new trial and offers the affidavit.

How should the court rule on the affidavit's admissibility?

Explanation. Rule 606(b) bars juror testimony about statements made during deliberations when offered to challenge the verdict, unless a recognized exception applies. Under the majority opinion, jurors' personal experiences, subjective prejudices, and sympathies are not 'extraneous prejudicial information'; only objective outside influences such as publicity, extra-record material reaching the jury room, or outside contacts qualify. Because the affidavit describes internal deliberative influences, it is inadmissible. (Derived from Warger v. Shauers (2013) (2013).)