Tanner v. United States

1987-06-22

Headline: Ruling bars juror testimony about alleged drug and alcohol use at trial, affirms most convictions, and remands for further review of whether defendants conspired to defraud a federal agency, limiting post‑trial juror inquiries.

Holding: The Court held that juror testimony about voluntary drug or alcohol use during trial is generally inadmissible under Rule 606(b), affirmed most convictions, and remanded a conspiracy‑sufficiency question for further review.

Real World Impact:

Limits use of juror testimony to challenge verdicts for juror intoxication.
Leaves most convictions in place while one conspiracy claim is reevaluated.
Clarifies that third‑party intermediaries can’t automatically be treated as the United States.

Topics: juror misconduct, juror intoxication, conspiracy to defraud federal agency, mail fraud

Summary

Background

A procurement manager at a rural electric cooperative and a local mine owner were tried and convicted for mail fraud and conspiring to defraud in connection with contracts paid with federal loan guarantees from the Rural Electrification Administration (REA). After conviction, two jurors contacted defense counsel saying several jurors drank alcohol, used drugs, and sometimes slept during trial. Petitioners asked to question jurors at a postverdict hearing and for a new trial.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether juror testimony about fellow jurors' voluntary drug or alcohol use during the trial could be used to challenge the verdict. It held that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), together with its legislative history, bars juror testimony to impeach a verdict for this kind of internal juror conduct and is not easily read to treat juror intoxication as an "outside influence." The Court upheld the district court’s denial of an additional juror‑testimony hearing because nonjuror evidence was insufficient and juror affidavits were obtained in violation of court orders.

Real world impact

The decision makes it difficult to obtain new trials based on postverdict juror affidavits about voluntary drinking or drug use during trial, while affirming most convictions in this case. The Court accepted that a conspiracy to defraud the United States can be carried out through third parties, but rejected treating the private cooperative itself as the United States. The case is remanded to decide whether the defendants caused false statements to be made to the REA.

Dissents or concurrances

A separate opinion argued that the juror allegations were grave and that the defendants were entitled to a hearing on juror intoxication to protect the right to a competent jury.