The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-3 Monday in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado [SCOTUSblog materials] that a juror’s racial bias creates an exception to the no-impeachment rule that limits the second-guessing of jury verdicts. The rule is designed to protect a jury’s verdict from being questioned later due to comments expressed during jury voting. Miguel Peña-Rodriguez was convicted of harassment and unlawful sexual contact against two teenage sisters, but it was later revealed that a juror made racially biased statements during deliberation. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority:

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 [text] 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.

Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion stating the jury deliberation is too important to be loomed over. He arguedthat although the instance of racial bias can cause great damage to the justice system, it is not so great of an issue to overcome the importance of confidentiality regarding jury decisions. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, in a separate dissent, that this rule “cannot be squared with the original understanding of the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendments. The Constitution does not require such a rule. Neither should we.”