Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado a Pena Rodriguez man was convicted for sexual harassment and conduct in sexual relations. Pena Rojas was informed by the other jurors of the fact that Pena Rodriguez was convicted for sexual misconduct and harassment. Pena Rodriguez also learned from his witness that Pena Rodriguez made racial bias comments against Pena. His statements were so clear that Pena Rodriguez was found guilty. Pena Rodriguez believed Pena Rojas should be tried again. However Rule 606b of Colorado’s Rules of Evidence forbid Pena Ridoz from using jury statements. Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado was brought to the US Supreme Court. The judges argued that Rule 606(b), Colorado’s Rules of Evidence, which allowed evidence of racial bias to be concealed in juror decisions to be made was a violation of Pena Rodriguez’s Sixth Amendment rights to an impartial jury.
Three teenage girls entered the Arapahoe Race Track bathroom to ask a man for a drink. One girl left just before the man turned off the lights and started sexually assaulting the two other girls. After fleeing and notifying their father, Pena Rodriguez, a male employee at the track, asked them to name the man in the bathroom as Pena Rodriguez. However, a witness later confirmed that he wasn’t at the track during the assault. Pena Rodriguez was eventually convicted in state court of harassment and unlawful sexual conduct. Pena Rodriguez was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct and harassment in the state trial court. However, Pena Rodriguez was retried by two jurors who claimed that Pena Rod’s trial had seen one juror make racially biased remarks about Pena. H. C., a juror who was a former law enforcement officer, said Pena-Rodriguez did it because he is Mexican. According to another juror, Pena Rod requested a new trial. The Colorado Supreme Court denied Pena Rode’s request for a retrial. Pena has Rule 606(b) that prohibits evidence from being presented regarding jury deliberations. Pena Rodriguez’ Sixth Amendment right of a impartial jury was not violated by Rule sixty6(b). This was because Pena Rodriguez did not ask jurors about racial biases prior to the deliberations. Pena Rodriguez decided that this rule couldn’t be used since it was clearly against his Sixth Amendment rights to an impartial juror. This is something he believed the U.S Supreme Court could resolve. U. The U.S Supreme Court ordered Pena-Rodriguez to be convicted by a vote of 5-3. This was because Pena Roriguez argued that any juror who makes clear statements suggesting that he or her relied on racist bias opinions is in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Colorado’s Rules of Evidence rule 606(b), forbids the blocking of evidence of clear bias statements regarding race that could affect the final verdict.
The U.S. Supreme Court remanded and reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy gave the opinion to the 5-3 majority. This means that if a juror declares that they used racial remarks to convict an accused, the court can accept evidence of their statements. The Court held that Rule 606 (b), also known as the no-impeachment law, was intended to prohibit jurors from giving evidence of their thinking process after a final verdict. The Court did agree that exceptions would be allowed in exceptional cases, such as Pena Rodriguez’s. Due to the Sixth Amendment, in rare cases where there is racial bias, the no impeachment rule cannot be challenged. Additionally, it is possible to argue there are safeguards that prevent racial bias from juries (e.g. voir dire), although these protections can be unsuccessful and some exceptions must be made. Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado Supreme Court. The Court found that Pena Rodriguez’s statements did indeed depend on racial bias. However, Pena Rodriguez encouraged other jurors and racial motivated convictions. The Colorado Supreme Court will now have to review Pena Rodriguez’s juror statements. The dissenting view argued that Pena Rodriguez was wrongly accused of violating the Sixth Amendment.
Even so, if there are good reasons to limit the No Impeachment Rules, it isn’t up to the court or the political branches decide whether the rules should be changed. In a dissenting opinion, the jury testimony had a long history. Although racial bias should be prevented, it can’t be treated apart from other forms or impartiality by a juror in order to determine if there has been a violation. This case should be reversed as it is unfair to other cases that have been influenced by jury misconduct.
American law sees the jury room as a secret and valuable area where the discussions take place. So much so that there is even an exception to the rule that the final verdict cannot based on anything said or done in the room. There have been many exceptions to this rule over the years. Pena Rodriguez was the victim of this court decision. It shows how race alters and challenges Constitutional laws. The Court’s decision that statements made by the jury can be used to support evidence is significant. This is because a verdict can only change if it is obvious something was done or said in closed discussions after the verdict was delivered. The Equal Protection right is usually involved in cases of race discrimination. Pena Rodriguez’s case was not an exception. However, others are questioning the impact race has on laws. The Supreme Court backed Pena Rodriguez’s claim that a racist juror violated his right to an impartial trial jury.
The US Supreme Court ruled Colorado’s Rules of Evidence Rule 606(b) could not conceal or interfere with evidence of racial prejudice from the jury. It can, however, be used to support a violation of Section 6. Pena Rodriguez won 5-3.
