In the case Pena Rodriguez v Colorado, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the State of Colorado. Pena Rodriguez was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct and harassment in the state of Colarado. After Pena Rodriguez was declared guilty, two jurors came forward and notified Pena-Rodriguez’s counsel that two other jury members made racially biased statements in regards to not only Pena-Rodriguez as well as his alibi witness throughout jury deliberations. After obtaining the two jurors affidavits it was revealed that they found Pena-Rodriguez innately guilty and the alibi witness uncredible due to the fact that they were both hispanic. After this relevation, Pena-Rodriguez moved for a new trial and was denied by both the trial court and the Colorado Court of Appeals. Rodriguez’s council believes that because the two jury members…show more content… Tanner brought up motions for a retrial after he was declared guilty on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and of mail fraud. However, under the “No-Impeachment” rule, formally known as Rule 606(b) the requests for retrial were denied by both trial and appellate courts as the law clearly states that “A juror may not testify about any statement made of 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 process concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters.” This ruling applies to any case in which an affidavit disclosing any information of deliberation, regardless of the racial bias in Pena-Rodriguez’s case and substance abuse in Tanner’s
