Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado
Reference: 15-606
Issue: Criminal procedure
Term: 2016
Important Dates
Argued: October 11, 2016
Decided: March 6, 2017
Outcome
Colorado Supreme Court reversed and remanded
Vote
5-3 to reverse and remand
Majority
Anthony Kennedy • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan
Concurring
None
Dissenting
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito


Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado is a case argued during the October 2016 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on October 11, 2016. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court. On March 6, 2017, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court. In this case, the court held that a Sixth Amendment inquiry is required when evidence of explicit racial animus by a juror is presented after a defendant is convicted. This ruling created a race-based exception to what are known as no-impeachment rules. These rules are used to prohibit the introduction of testimony regarding statements made during jury deliberations when those statements are later introduced to challenge the jury's verdict.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez sought a new trial because of the alleged racial bias of a juror.
  • The issue: A rule of evidence prohibits the use of testimony made regarding juror deliberations generally. Can this rule be used to prohibit such testimony if the testimony provides evidence of a juror's racial bias?
  • The outcome: On March 6, 2017, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court.


    • In brief: In this case, petitioner Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez claimed his guilty verdict was tainted by a juror's racial bias, a view which was supported in affidavits provided by two other jurors in the case. A rule of evidence in Colorado, Rule 606(b), prohibits introduction of evidence regarding statements made in jury deliberations. Pena-Rodriguez claimed this rule could not be used to prohibit evidence of racial bias because to do so violated his right to an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Argument in the case was held on October 11, 2016. The court issued its opinion on March 6, 2017, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the court. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion which was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas also wrote a dissenting opinion.

    You can review the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion here.[1]

    Click on the tabs below to learn more about this Supreme Court case.

    Case

    Background

    Prior to the start of petitioner Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez's three-day trial for multiple charges related to sexual assault and sexual harassment, a prospective jury pool received a written questionnaire asking, in part, "Is there anything about you that you feel would make it difficult for you to be a fair juror in this case?" During jury selection for the trial, a process known as voir dire, the judge asked the jury pool, "Do any of you have a feeling for or against [Petitioner] or the Prosecution?" Also during voir dire, Pena-Rodriguez's attorney asked the pool if this was simply not a good case for them to be a fair juror. According to the record, no juror who served on Pena-Rodriguez's trial answered any of the questions in such a way as to reflect any type of racial animus or bias. The jury convicted Pena-Rodriguez on one count of sexual contact without consent and two counts of harassment.[1]

    Two weeks after the jury reached their verdict, Pena-Rodriguez petitioned the court for juror contact information. He alleged some members of the jury used ethnic slurs in the course of deliberations." The trial court authorized Pena-Rodriguez to submit affidavits regarding the allegations of juror misconduct. Pena-Rodriguez's lawyer submitted an affidavit claiming that, shortly after the jury verdict was entered, "two jurors informed her that 'some of the other jurors expressed a bias towards [Petitioner] and the alibi witness because they were Hispanic.'" The judge permitted Pena-Rodriguez's lawyer to contact these two jurors, identified as M.M. and L.T., but only to secure affidavits regarding their best recollection of exactly what each biased juror stated about Pena-Rodriguez and/or the alibi witness.[1]

    According to the opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court,[1]

    “

    Thereafter, Petitioner submitted affidavits from jurors M.M. and L.T., both of whom alleged that juror H.C. made racially biased statements during deliberations. According to M.M., H.C. said that 'I think he did it because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want.' She also stated that H.C. 'made other statements concerning Mexican men being physically controlling of women because they have a sense of entitlement and think they can do whatever they want with women.' L.T. stated that H.C. 'believed that [Petitioner] was guilty because in his experience as an ex-law enforcement officer, Mexican men had a bravado that caused them to believe they could do whatever they wanted with women.' L.T. further averred that H.C. 'said that where he used to patrol, nine times out of ten Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls.' Finally, L.T. stated that H.C. 'said that he did not think the alibi witness was credible because, among other things, he was an illegal.' [2]

    		”

    On the basis of these affidavits, Pena-Rodriguez moved to dismiss the guilty verdict against him and receive a new trial. The trial court denied Pena-Rodriguez's motion, finding that a provision of Colorado's Rules of Evidence, Rule 606(b), barred investigation into H.C.'s alleged statements. Colorado's Rule 606(b) prohibits juror testimony on any matter occurring during jury deliberations.[3] Colorado's Rule 606(b) mimics a rule of the federal rules of evidence, one that is used in many states. These rules are known as no impeachment rules. These rules generally prohibit the introduction of juror testimony regarding statements made during deliberations when offered to challenge the jury's verdict.[4]

    The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's denial of a new trial. The Court of Appeals found that the juror statements could not be admitted under 606(b) and that, in failing to question jurors sufficiently during voir dire, Pena-Rodriguez waived his right to challenge the verdict under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    On appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld 606(b)'s prohibition against entering the juror's affidavits into evidence. The court further held that applying the rule did not violate Pena-Rodriguez's Sixth Amendment rights. The Colorado Supreme Court cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 1987 opinion in Tanner v. United States, which rejected a challenge to 606(b) rules on the basis of juror incompetence. There, the U.S. Supreme Court held that several aspects of the trial process including voir dire, counsel's observations of the jury, jurors' opportunity to report inappropriate comments or conduct prior to a verdict, and the use of non-juror evidence after a verdict could protect a criminal defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment. In 2014, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held in Warger v. Shauers that a plain reading of Rule 606(b) precludes the use of juror testimony when a party is seeking a new trial on the basis of juror dishonesty during voir dire.[5]

    The issue in this case was whether the application of Rule 606(b) constitutionally precluded the use of juror testimony as evidence of racial bias in order to prove a violation of the right to an impartial jury, protected under the Sixth Amendment.[1][4]

    Petitioner's challenge

    Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez challenged the application of "no impeachment" rules, such as Colorado's Rule 606(b), to bar evidence of a juror's racial bias in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

    Certiorari granted

    On November 10, 2015, petitioner Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Pena-Rodriguez's certiorari request on April 4, 2016. Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on October 11, 2016.

    Arguments


    Question presented

    Question presented:

    Whether a no-impeachment rule constitutionally may bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.[4]


    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[6]


    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    Decision

    In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion which was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas also wrote a dissenting opinion.[8]

    Opinion

    Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court for a five-justice majority. After a lengthy and detailed review of the court's jurisprudence in the areas of race, juries, and no-impeachment rules, Justice Kennedy announced that a Sixth Amendment inquiry is required when evidence of explicit racial animus by a juror(s) is presented post-conviction. In his words,[8]

    “

    The Court now holds that where a juror makes a clear statement that indicates 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 in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror’s statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee. Not every offhand comment indicating racial bias or hostility will justify setting aside the no-impeachment bar to allow further judicial inquiry. For the inquiry to proceed, there must be a showing that one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations and resulting verdict. To qualify, the statement must tend to show that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in the juror’s vote to convict. Whether that threshold showing has been satisfied is a matter committed to the substantial discretion of the trial court in light of all the circumstances, including the content and timing of the alleged statements and the reliability of the proffered evidence. [2]

    		”

    Applying this understanding to the facts in the Pena-Rodriguez case, the court held that the Colorado Supreme Court must review the evidence of racial animus that was presented after Pena-Rodriguez's conviction, setting aside the state's no-impeachment rule in deference to the commands of the Sixth Amendment. Due to this interpretation, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court.[8]

    Concurring opinions

    There were no concurring opinions filed.

    Dissenting opinions

    Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion. In his view, while acknowledging that good reasons may exist for limiting or eliminating no-impeachment rules may exist, Justice Thomas that this was not a question for the court to decide but was rather a decision best left to the political branches. Justice Thomas argued that the court's blanket rule in this area was not mandated by either the Sixth Amendment or the 14th Amendment.[8]

    Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion which was joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas. In his view, Justice Alito found difficulty accepting that the Sixth Amendment distinguished racial bias from other forms of juror misconduct. Justice Alito wrote,[8]

    “

    What the Sixth Amendment protects is the right to an 'impartial jury.' Nothing in the text or history of the Amendment or in the inherent nature of the jury trial right suggests that the extent of the protection provided by the Amendment depends on the nature of a jury’s partiality or bias. ... Nor has the Court found any decision of this Court suggesting that the Sixth Amendment recognizes some sort of hierarchy of partiality or bias. The Court points to a line of cases holding that, in some narrow circumstances, the Constitution requires trial courts to conduct voir dire on the subject of race. Those decisions, however, were not based on a ranking of types of partiality but on the Court’s conclusion that in certain cases racial bias was especially likely. ... It is undoubtedly true that 'racial bias implicates unique historical, constitutional, and institutional concerns.' ... But it is hard to see what that has to do with the scope of an individual criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to be judged impartially. ... This disparate treatment is unsupportable under the Sixth Amendment. If the Sixth Amendment requires the admission of juror testimony about statements or conduct during deliberations that show one type of juror partiality, then statements or conduct showing any type of partiality should be treated the same way. [2]

    		”

    Justice Alito also echoed Justice Thomas' concern that the court's imposition of the rule failed to consider the input of the political branches either retrospectively or prospectively in addressing this problem. In Alito's words, "the majority barely bothers to engage with the policy issues implicated by no-impeachment rules. But even if it had carefully grappled with those issues, it still would have no basis for exalting its own judgment over that of the many expert policymakers who have endorsed broad no-impeachment rules. ... The Court’s decision is well-intentioned. It seeks to remedy a flaw in the jury trial system, but as this Court said some years ago, it is questionable whether our system of trial by jury can endure this attempt to perfect it. ... I respectfully dissent."[8]


    The opinion

    Filings

    The court granted Pena-Rodriguez's certiorari request on April 4, 2016.

    Merits filings

    Parties' filings

    • Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez, the petitioner, filed his merits brief on June 23, 2016.
    • Pena-Rodriguez filed a reply brief on the merits on September 19, 2016.

    Amicus curiae filings

    The following groups filed amicus curiae briefs supporting the petitioner, Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez.

    • Brief of the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law
    • Brief of the Constitutional Accountability Center
    • Brief of the Hispanic National Bar Association
    • Brief of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People - Legal and Education Defense Fund
    • Brief of the National Association of Federal Defenders
    • Brief of Prof. Cedric Merlin Powell
    • Brief of the United Mexican States
    • Brief of various law professors

    The following groups filed amicus curiae briefs supporting the respondent, the state of Colorado.

    • Brief of the Colorado District Attorneys Council
    • Brief of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
    • Brief of the United States of America


    Certiorari filings

    Parties' filings

    • Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez, the petitioner, filed his petition for certiorari on November 10, 2015.
    • The state of Colorado, the respondent, filed a brief in opposition to certiorari on February 19, 2016, after an order extending the time to file a response was granted by the court.
    • Pena-Rodriguez filed a reply brief on March 7, 2016, to Colorado's brief in opposition.

    Amicus curiae filings

    The following groups filed amicus curiae brief in support of granting certiorari.

    • Brief of the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law
    • Brief of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People - Legal and Education Defense Fund
    • Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
    • Brief of the National Congress of American Indians
    • Brief of various law professors
    • Brief of various retired judges

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Supreme Court of Colorado, Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez v. The people of the state of Colorado, decided May 18, 2015
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    3. ↑ Oyez.org, "Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado," accessed September 16, 2016
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, April 4, 2016
    5. ↑ Oyez.org, "Warger v. Shauers," accessed September 16, 2016
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, argued October 11, 2016
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, ‘’Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado,’’ argued October 11, 2016
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Supreme Court of the United States, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, decided March 6, 2017
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Pena-Rodriguez_v._Colorado&oldid=8891674"