Final Draft
Hao Huynh
4/17/17
LGLA 2331 Mon
INTRODUCTION
Recently, Portlandia has a case on all fours with Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. The case established that post-verdict jury testimonies that used to be forbidden under Rule 606(b) will be allowed when courts discover racial bias after the verdict. Here are some other reasons why post-verdict testimonies are constitutional and ensures a fair and just trial.

RULE 606(B) GOES AGAINST THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.
The sixth amendment of the constitution sets rights that set rights when it comes criminal persecution. It can be argued that Rule 606(b) is unconstitutional because it violates a lot of provisions that is provided by the Sixth Amendment. The right to have an impartial jury and the right to present a defense/Compulsory Process Clause can be compromised if Rule 606(b) is not set aside when there is racial bias or any other bias contributing to the jury verdict. …show more content…
Juries must be objective and neutral when selected and base their verdict on the facts of the case. However, some jurors can be biased and affect the jury deliberations. Voir dire can screen these jurors to prevent them from being on the jury, but sometimes a juror can lie about their biases to gain a place in the jury. In most cases, the courts find out after the verdict from a member of the juror. Many parties appealing the verdict attempt to use the Rule 606(b) exception to get a juror testimony about racial bias. However, many courts have ruled that Rule 606(b) excludes jury testimony and racial bias does not fit into the exceptions. As a result, defendants do not get an impartial jury or a fair