Oregon Judges Denies Motion for New Trial Based on Jurors Zooming in on Video Footage Because the Prosecutors "Hadn't Done Their Job"

Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) states the following:

(b) During an Inquiry into the Validity of a Verdict or Indictment.

(1) Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence. During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or 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 processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters.

(2) Exceptions. A juror may testify about whether:

(A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention;

(B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or

(C) a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form.

Interestingly, in Ertsgaard by Ertsgaard v. Beard, 800 P.2d 759 (Or. 1990), the Supreme Court of Oregon specifically noted that Oregon has not adopted Rule 606(b), "apparently believing that Oregon case law adequately stated the circumstances under which a court may inquire into the validity of a jury's verdict."

I haven't found any significant precedent fleshing out Oregon law on jury impeachment, but a case that was just decided might fill that void.

According to an Oregon Live article, "A Multnomah County Circuit Court judge on Tuesday rejected a defendant’s request for a new trial, finding that juror conduct during deliberations didn’t deprive the man of his right to a fair trial." Specifically,

Last month, the 12-person jury found Benson guilty for shooting and killing Christopher Klein, 30, as he sat in his car on Sept. 11, 2020, near Burnside Street and 122nd Avenue.

Prosecutors during the trial had submitted surveillance footage from multiple sources as evidence of Benson’s guilt. Benson’s lawyers raised the possibility that another assailant was responsible.

A juror had complained that prosecutors hadn’t done their job, leading the jurors to zoom in on the footage on their own. One of the jurors acknowledged that he had Googled how to zoom in on videos during deliberations.

During the Dec. 19 hearing before [Judge David]  Rees, two jurors told the judge that they had used the video-playing software already on the laptop provided to them by the court to view the evidence and that one juror Googled how to view the footage frame by frame.

After the hearing,

Rees said the juror’s Googling amounted to misconduct — jurors are repeatedly ordered not to do their own research during trials — but he said it did not “introduce any new substantive information or images that were not already part of the trial record.”

He concluded that the jury’s use of the video player’s magnifying feature was “not the result of any misconduct by the jury.”

“It was entirely reasonable for the jury to conclude that it could use the available software provided to them to zoom in on relevant portions of the video evidence just as the parties had done during the course of their trial presentations,” he ruled.

It's a little unclear on how Judge Rees ruled because the article mentions the judge both finding and not finding jury misconduct. The article does mention that the defense plans to appeal, and I'll be very interested to see how the appellate court(s) rule on the issue.

-CM