This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was riding his motorcycle when a truck driven by Shauers (D) struck him from behind. P claimed he was stopped at the time of the accident, while D claims that P suddenly pulled out in front of him. P sustained serious injuries that ultimately required the amputation of his left leg. P sued D. During jury selection, P’s counsel asked whether any jurors would be unable to award damages for pain and suffering or future medical expenses, or whether there was any juror who thought, “I don’t think I could be a fair and impartial juror on this kind of case.” Juror Regina Whipple, who was later selected as the jury foreperson, answered no to each of these questions. D got the verdict. One of the jurors contacted D to express concern over juror Whipple’s conduct. The complaining juror signed an affidavit claiming that Whipple had spoken during deliberations about “a motor vehicle collision in which her daughter was at fault for the collision and a man died,” and had “related that if her daughter had been sued, it would have ruined her life.” P used the affidavit and moved for a new trial. The Court refused to grant a new trial, because the complaining juror’s affidavit, was barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b). P appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.