Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Jurors Competency As A Witness

6 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Jurors Competency As A WitnessQuestion 1 of 6

Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) provides in pertinent part: "(1) Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence. During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury's deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror's or another juror's vote; or any juror's mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror's affidavit or evidence of a juror's statement on these topics. (2) Exceptions. A juror may testify about whether: (A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention; (B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or (C) a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form."

In a federal fraud prosecution, the jury convicts the defendant. The defendant moves for a new trial on the ground that the jury considered a fact not in evidence. In support, he submits an affidavit from Juror Porter, who states: "During deliberations, Juror Kim told us that she had read a newspaper article saying the defendant had previously been indicted for fraud. That article convinced me that the defendant was guilty." Which statement is correct?

The entire affidavit is admissible because the newspaper article is extraneous prejudicial information and Porter's statement about its effect establishes that the information was material.

The entire affidavit is inadmissible because it describes a statement made and an incident that occurred during deliberations.

The court may consider Porter's statement that the article convinced her, but may not consider Kim's statement about reading the article because it is hearsay not within any exception.

The court may consider Porter's statement that Kim said she read the article, but may not consider Porter's statement that the article convinced her the defendant was guilty.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Jurors Competency As A Witness

Practice Jurors Competency As A Witness in Bar Exam (Next Generation) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Jurors Competency As A Witness, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

The entire affidavit is admissible because the newspaper article is extraneous prejudicial information and Porter's statement about its effect establishes that the information was material.
The entire affidavit is inadmissible because it describes a statement made and an incident that occurred during deliberations.
The court may consider Porter's statement that the article convinced her, but may not consider Kim's statement about reading the article because it is hearsay not within any exception.
The court may consider Porter's statement that Kim said she read the article, but may not consider Porter's statement that the article convinced her the defendant was guilty. (correct answer)

Explanation: Whenever you see Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), separate the fact of exposure to extraneous information from the effect that information had on jurors' minds. Only the first category is admissible. Here, the affidavit has two components. Juror Kim's statement that she read a newspaper article about the defendant's prior indictment is admissible because it describes extraneous prejudicial information improperly brought to the jury's attention — an explicit exception under 606(b). But Juror Porter's statement that the article convinced her the defendant was guilty is exactly what the rule forbids: testimony about "the effect of anything on that juror's … vote" and the juror's mental processes. Therefore, the court may consider the first part but not the second. The choice saying the entire affidavit is admissible because the article was extraneous and the effect establishes materiality is wrong: 606(b) bars the effect portion regardless of how probative it seems. The choice saying the entire affidavit is inadmissible because it describes deliberations is too broad — the rule creates an exception for extraneous information, so not everything from deliberations is barred. And the choice saying the court may consider Porter's statement that the article convinced her, but not Kim's statement, reverses the rule; also, Kim's statement is not excluded as hearsay because it is not offered for the truth of the article's content, but to show what information reached the jury. Study tip: on 606(b) questions, ask first, "Is this about the outside thing or the inside effect?" Admit the outside thing, exclude the effect.

Question 2

Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) provides in pertinent part: "(1) ... a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury's deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror's or another juror's vote; or any juror's mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. ... (2) A juror may testify about whether ... (C) a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form."

In a federal breach-of-contract action, the jury returns a verdict form stating "We find for the defendant." Before the jury is discharged, the foreperson tells the judge, "I circled 'defendant' by mistake; we actually found for the plaintiff." The judge discharges the jury. The plaintiff moves to correct the verdict, offering an affidavit from the foreperson repeating that statement and an affidavit from Juror Lin stating: "I did not want to award damages, but the other jurors pressured me into agreeing to a plaintiff's verdict." What may the court consider under Rule 606(b)?

The foreperson's affidavit, but not Juror Lin's, because the foreperson's statement falls within the clerical-error exception and Lin's affidavit concerns deliberations and mental processes. (correct answer)
Both affidavits, because both bear on the accuracy of the verdict as entered and a court must be able to correct a verdict that does not reflect the jury's actual decision.
Neither affidavit, because both are juror statements made during deliberations and Rule 606(b) forbids receiving a juror's affidavit on those topics.
Juror Lin's affidavit, but not the foreperson's, because the foreperson is estopped from impeaching her own verdict and Lin's affidavit describes the pressure that produced the verdict.

Explanation: This question tests the narrow exceptions to Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b). Whenever a juror's affidavit is offered to challenge a verdict, separate the forbidden topics—deliberations, votes, and mental processes—from the two permitted topics: extraneous prejudicial information/outside influence and clerical errors on the verdict form. The foreperson's affidavit falls squarely within the clerical-error exception. Rule 606(b)(2)(C) allows a juror to testify about "a mistake made in entering the verdict on the verdict form," and "I circled 'defendant' by mistake" is exactly that. So the court may consider it. Juror Lin's affidavit is barred. Saying "the other jurors pressured me" describes deliberations, how she was influenced to vote, and her mental processes. Pressure from fellow jurors is internal to the jury room, not an outside influence, and it is not a clerical error. Rule 606(b) protects the finality and confidentiality of jury deliberations even when a juror later regrets the verdict. Now the wrong choices. "Both affidavits" overreads the goal of correcting an inaccurate verdict; Rule 606(b) does not allow every affidavit suggesting the verdict was wrong. "Neither affidavit" ignores the explicit exception for the foreperson's clerical mistake. And "Lin's affidavit, but not the foreperson's" misstates the law: a foreperson is not estopped from testifying about a clerical error, while Lin's pressure-based account is precisely what 606(b) excludes. Study tip: on a 606(b) question, ask, "Is this a typo on the verdict form, or is it about how the jury got there?" Only the former is admissible.

Question 3

In United States v. Kensington, the Supreme Court held: "The Sixth Amendment requires an exception to the no-impeachment rule where a juror makes a clear statement that indicates he or she relied on racial or ethnic stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, and the statement was a significant factor in the juror's vote to convict."

After a federal jury convicts a Hispanic defendant of assault, defense counsel learns that Juror Marsh said during deliberations, "Hispanic people are violent, and this defendant is Hispanic, so he should be locked up." Juror Tran's affidavit reports the statement and says Marsh then voted to convict. The government argues that Rule 606(b) bars consideration of the affidavit. What should the court do?

Deny the motion because Rule 606(b) contains no exception for racial bias and the statement was made during deliberations, where it is protected from inquiry.
Hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the statement was a clear racial stereotype and a significant factor in Marsh's vote, because the Sixth Amendment overrides Rule 606(b) in these circumstances. (correct answer)
Grant a new trial without a hearing because any explicit racial statement by a juror during deliberations automatically invalidates a criminal conviction and no showing of effect is required.
Deny the motion because the exception described in the quoted holding applies only to statements made during jury selection, not to statements made during deliberations, and Marsh's statement was a deliberation statement.

Explanation: Whenever you see a question about Rule 606(b) and juror statements during deliberations, remember that the rule generally bars testimony about internal jury discussions, but the Sixth Amendment creates a narrow, powerful exception for racial bias. The Supreme Court in Pena-Rodriguez (the basis for the quoted holding) requires two things: a clear statement indicating reliance on racial or ethnic stereotypes or animus, and that the statement was a significant factor in the juror's vote to convict. Here, the court should hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Marsh's statement – "Hispanic people are violent" – meets that two-part test. That's the correct course because the Sixth Amendment overrides the no-impeachment rule in these circumstances. A hearing is necessary to assess credibility and whether the statement actually influenced the verdict; you cannot simply assume it did or didn't. The choice saying deny the motion because Rule 606(b) contains no exception misunderstands the law – the constitutional exception exists. The choice calling for a new trial without a hearing is overbroad; it ignores the requirement that the statement be a significant factor, not just any racial remark. And the choice claiming the exception applies only to jury selection misstates the holding – it explicitly covers statements made during deliberations, as this one was. Your takeaway: when racial bias is alleged from a juror, don't default to 606(b)'s blanket bar. Instead, ask whether the statement clearly reflects racial animus and whether it could have been a significant factor – if yes, an evidentiary hearing is the proper step.

Question 4

Federal Rule of Evidence 606(a) provides: "At the trial, a juror may not testify as a witness before the other jurors. If a juror is called to testify, the court must give a party an opportunity to object outside the jury's presence."

In a federal diversity action for personal injuries, a seated juror, Ms. Avery, is the only eyewitness to the collision that is the subject of the lawsuit. During the defendant's case-in-chief, the defendant calls Avery to testify about how the collision occurred. Plaintiff's counsel immediately objects in the presence of the jury. What is the trial court's correct course?

Sustain the objection immediately and instruct the jury to disregard the request, because Rule 606(a) makes a seated juror categorically incompetent to testify in the trial.
Ask Avery whether her knowledge of the accident would affect her impartiality and, if she says it would not, allow her to testify like any other fact witness.
Overrule the objection and permit Avery to testify from the witness stand, because Rule 602 makes her competent and Rule 606(a) merely guarantees a party an opportunity to object.
Give the parties an opportunity to be heard outside the jury's presence and, if the plaintiff's objection is maintained, refuse to permit Avery to testify before the other jurors. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests the intersection of a juror's competence as a witness and the trial court's duty to handle objections without tainting the jury. When you see Rule 606(a), remember two things: a seated juror generally may not testify before the other jurors, and if a juror is called, the court must give the parties an opportunity to object outside the jury's presence. Because plaintiff's counsel objected in open court, the judge may not immediately sustain or overrule the objection there. The correct course is to give both parties an opportunity to be heard outside the jury's presence. If the plaintiff maintains the objection, the court should refuse to allow Avery to testify before the other jurors. Sustaining the objection immediately and instructing the jury to disregard the request is wrong because the court skipped the required outside-the-presence hearing and made a potentially prejudicial ruling in front of the jury. Asking Avery whether her knowledge would affect her impartiality and letting her testify if she says no is also wrong: Rule 606(a) does not make juror testimony turn on her own assessment of bias, and she still cannot testify before the other jurors over objection. Overruling based on Rule 602 misses the point as well—Rule 602 is a general personal-knowledge rule, but Rule 606(a) is a specific restriction on seated jurors. Study tip: whenever a rule requires an "opportunity to object outside the jury's presence," the correct procedural answer will almost always involve removing the jury before ruling.

Question 5

In United States v. Cramer, the court explained: "For purposes of Rule 606(b), 'extraneous prejudicial information' means specific information from outside the trial record, such as media reports or knowledge of a party or witness. It does not include the general life experience or professional expertise that a juror necessarily brings to deliberations. A juror's testimony about how another juror applied her expertise during deliberations is testimony about a statement made during deliberations and is barred."

In a federal medical-malpractice action, the jury returns a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff moves for a new trial, offering an affidavit from Juror Patel. Patel states: "During deliberations, Juror Nguyen, an orthopedic surgeon, told us that in her experience a herniated disc like the plaintiff's always resolves within a year, and she therefore did not believe the plaintiff's claim for future medical expenses. Several jurors then changed their votes to the defendant." Which statement is correct?

The court may consider the affidavit because Nguyen's professional opinion is extraneous prejudicial information that was improperly brought to the jury's attention.
The court may consider the affidavit only to establish that Nguyen made the statement, but not to establish that other jurors changed their votes.
The court may not consider the affidavit because Nguyen's expertise is not extraneous prejudicial information and the affidavit describes statements made during deliberations and the jurors' mental processes. (correct answer)
The court may not consider the affidavit because Rule 606(b) permits a juror to testify only by deposition in open court, not by affidavit or other hearsay statement.

Explanation: Whenever you see a juror affidavit attacking a verdict, start with Rule 606(b): a juror may not testify about statements made during deliberations or about any juror's mental processes, unless the matter involves extraneous prejudicial information, outside influences, or a clerical mistake in entering the verdict. Here, Patel's affidavit is exactly the kind of testimony the rule excludes. Nguyen's statement as an orthopedic surgeon is her professional expertise—something a juror necessarily brings to deliberations—not extraneous information from outside the trial record. The passage itself cites Cramer for this distinction. Patel also describes how Nguyen applied that expertise and how other jurors "changed their votes," which reaches both deliberative statements and mental processes. Therefore, the court cannot consider the affidavit for any purpose. The first wrong choice treats Nguyen's professional opinion as extraneous prejudicial information improperly brought to the jury; that confuses outside facts with internal expertise. The next choice would allow the affidavit "only to establish that Nguyen made the statement," but 606(b) still bars testimony about statements made during deliberations. The last choice, claiming 606(b) permits juror testimony only by deposition in open court, misreads the rule—606(b) creates no deposition procedure; it broadly prohibits juror testimony about deliberations, and affidavits are simply the usual attempted vehicle. Remember the key distinction: external facts may be explored, but internal expertise and jury-room statements are off-limits. If an allegation is about a juror's knowledge, experience, or words during deliberations, it is almost always barred.

Question 6

Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) provides in pertinent part: "During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury's deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror's or another juror's vote; or any juror's mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. A juror may testify about whether ... (B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror."

In a federal drug prosecution, the jury convicts. The defendant moves for a new trial, attaching an affidavit from Juror Bloom. Bloom states: "On the second day of deliberations, the court security officer assigned to the jury told us, 'If you do not reach a verdict soon, the judge will keep you sequestered for another week.' After he left, Juror Ford said, 'We should convict now so we can go home.' I voted to convict because I did not want to be sequestered." Which statement is correct?

The court may consider the security officer's statement because it describes an outside influence, but may not consider Ford's statement or Bloom's explanation of her vote because they concern deliberations and mental processes. (correct answer)
The court may consider all three statements because they all occurred during deliberations and, taken together, show that the jury's verdict was coerced by the threat of continued sequestration.
The court may consider none of the statements because each is either a statement made during deliberations or an explanation of a juror's mental processes, and Rule 606(b) bars all such evidence without exception.
The court may consider Ford's statement and Bloom's explanation, but not the security officer's statement, because the officer's statement concerned court administration rather than the evidence and was therefore not an outside influence.

Explanation: Whenever you see a juror affidavit after a verdict, you should immediately think Rule 606(b): jurors can testify about outside influences, but not about internal deliberations, statements among jurors, or their own mental processes. Here, the security officer's statement is exactly the kind of "outside influence" the rule allows: an officer connected to the judge allegedly pressured the jury with a threat of continued sequestration. That evidence may be considered. By contrast, Juror Ford's statement ("We should convict now") is a statement made during jury deliberations, and Bloom's explanation that she voted to convict to avoid sequestration is a juror's mental process concerning the verdict. Both are barred, even if they help explain how the outside influence affected the vote. The answer claiming all three statements may be considered because they show coercion collapses the rule's careful distinction: outside influence is admissible; internal deliberative reactions are not. The answer claiming none may be considered ignores the express outside-influence exception. And the answer that admits Ford's statement and Bloom's explanation while excluding the officer's statement gets the rule backwards—court administration is not immunity; pressure from court staff is still an outside influence. For the exam, remember the 606(b) line: look for the outside actor first; once the outside influence is established, everything internal that follows is generally inadmissible.