Does Jury Impeachment Apply to a Juror Saying That Sentencing an Undocumented Migrant to Death Was Like “Killing Invasive Animal Species”?

Section 90.607(2)(b) of the Florida Statutes states that

Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment.

That said, in its opinion in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. 206 (2017), the Supreme Court held “that 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 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.”

So, does this Constitutional exception apply to a juror saying that sentencing an undocumented Honduran migrant to death was like “killing invasive animal species”?

That’s the allegation in the case of Ronald Lopez-Andrade. Lopez-Andrade was convicted of murder and sexual battery and given a death sentence. Thereafter, a “juror recently sent two emails to Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Michelle Delancy and a Facebook message to a public defender accusing his fellow jurors of misconduct.” Among other things, the juror “claimed that one juror compared sentencing the defendant to death to ‘killing invasive animal species,’ which the juror who wrote to the judge found to be xenophobic due to Lopez-Andrade being an undocumented migrant.”

Assuming the juror did in fact make this “invasive species” comment, it seems to fit squarely within the Constitutional exception created by Pena-Rodriguez and should open the door for jury impeachment.

-CM