Note: This is a first-person narrative for storytelling and review.
I spent a week with Tanner v. United States. Weird thing to say about a court case, I know. But I did. I read it, taught with it, and held it up to real cases I looked at. And you know what? It left me mixed—calm about the rule, and a little sick about the cost.
If you'd like my separate deep dive on the decision, you can find it here.
So… what is Tanner?
Short version: it’s a 1987 Supreme Court case. The Court said jurors can’t later testify about stuff they did inside the jury process—like drinking, using drugs, or dozing—to attack the verdict. That’s barred by a rule called Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b). Jurors can only talk about “outside” things, like a bribe, a threat, or news brought into the jury room.
That’s the heart of it. Inside behavior stays inside. Outside pressure can come in.
Real examples that stuck with me
-
The Tanner facts: after a trial, the defense said some jurors drank alcohol at lunch, used marijuana and cocaine, and even slept. Shocking, right? The Court said jurors can’t testify about that to overturn the verdict, because it’s “internal.” The verdict stood.
-
A real later case with a narrow opening: Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017). The Court made a small exception. If a juror shows clear racial bias that affects the vote, juror statements can be used. It’s a civil rights thing. Narrow, but real.
-
Another real follow-up: Warger v. Shauers (2014). A party said a juror lied during jury selection. The Court said, still no juror testimony about what was said in the jury room. You need other proof.
-
The old anchor: Remmer v. United States (1954). If someone tries to sway a juror from the outside—like a bribe—that’s fair game. Courts can hear about that.
-
When prosecutors go too far: In Berger v. United States, the Court reminded us that a prosecutor’s duty is to seek justice, not just convictions. Different context, same concern for fairness.
-
The wartime outlier: Hirabayashi v. United States shows how racial bias can be baked into law itself—a cautionary tale that echoes the Peña-Rodriguez exception.
-
Fourth-Amendment clarity: United States v. Carroll gave us the automobile-search rule; like Tanner, it's a bright line that sometimes pinches.
-
First Amendment stumble: United States v. Stevens reminds me that even well-meaning bans can sweep too broadly—clarity versus fairness again.
-
Classic free-speech limit: Schenck v. United States still stings for its “clear and present danger” test—another example of rules trying to bottle chaos.
-
Plea-bargain bind: Simmons v. United States shows how procedural choices can boomerang on defendants—a procedural trap of a different kind.
-
Mens rea rescue: Morissette v. United States stands for the idea that intent matters, a concept lurking under Tanner’s concern with juror misconduct intent.
-
Evidence fairness parallel: Old Chief v. United States spotlights how sometimes excluding details (like priors) actually promotes justice—another trade-off between completeness and prejudice.
-
Double-jeopardy wrinkle: Gamble v. United States keeps the separate-sovereigns doctrine alive—another instance where the Court sticks with a clear rule despite fairness criticism.
These aren’t just footnotes. They show where the wall stands, and where there’s a tiny door.
How I “used” it in my work
I use Tanner like a filter. When I hear a complaint about a jury, I ask two fast questions:
- Is this inside the jury room or juror mind? If yes, Tanner blocks it.
- Is this an outside push—bribe, threat, news, social media DMs? If yes, that may come in.
Once, I saw a file note about a juror who kept nodding off. We had no proof from a bailiff or the judge, only a juror’s word after the verdict. Under Tanner, that’s out. Frustrating? A little. But rules are rules.
Another time, a clerk flagged a juror who read news about the case at home and talked about it. That’s outside material brought in. With non-juror proof, that kind of thing can get a hearing.
What I like
- The rule is simple. Inside versus outside. Clean lines help.
- It protects jurors. They don’t get dragged back in and grilled after the case. That matters.
- It nudges lawyers to do the job early—good jury selection, clear orders, and real-time notes.
What bugged me
- It can feel unfair. A sleeping juror can wreck a trial, yet jurors can’t testify about it later.
- It puts weight on courtroom eyes. If the judge or staff didn’t see it, you may be stuck.
- It asks a lot of people. We’re human. Lunch beer happens. Still, the verdict lives.
I know that sounds harsh. Here’s the thing—Tanner did not ignore the problem. The Court pointed to other safety nets: jury selection (voir dire), court staff watching, non-juror proof, and reports during the trial, not after. Still, some holes stay holes.
A quick coffee break thought
Ever sit in a cold courtroom, stale coffee, grey carpet, and time crawling? People fade. Jurors are people. Tanner accepts that—but draws a line to keep verdicts stable. I get it. I don’t always love it.
If, after slogging through transcripts, you’d rather talk to someone who isn’t wearing a robe or a juror badge, a lot of lawyers I know blow off steam on sites dedicated to quick, low-pressure meet-ups like JustHookup where you can step outside the courthouse bubble and make a casual connection in minutes. Practicing near the northwest Chicago suburbs? You might find the local listings at Backpage Crystal Lake especially handy, because it narrows those no-strings encounters to nearby matches and saves you both the drive and the small talk.
Tips I give folks who ask me
- Gather non-juror proof. Bailiff notes, court reporter notes, emails, security logs.
- Watch during trial. If you see a juror nod off, say it right then. Make a record.
- Keep “outside” clean. Ask the judge for clear orders on phones, news, and social media.
- In jury selection, ask plain questions about bias and health. Then follow up, kindly.
- If bias shows after the verdict and it’s racial, read Peña-Rodriguez. It’s narrow but real.
Who this case helps
- Trial lawyers who need a bright line fast.
- Judges who want quiet, final verdicts.
- Students and reporters trying to sort rumor from proof.
My verdict
- Clarity: 5/5
- Fairness feel: 3/5
- Real-world fit: 3.5/5
Call it a strong rule with a human ache. Tanner builds a sturdy fence. It keeps out chaos, but sometimes it keeps out truth, too. Do I think the line should shift a little more for serious stuff like sleeping or heavy use? Maybe. But until the Court moves it, the map is the map.
Would I “use” Tanner again? Yep. It’s a go-to. I just keep a second tool in my pocket: eyes open during trial, and proof from someone who isn’t on the jury.
Because once the door closes on that room, Tanner says it mostly stays closed.
If you're intrigued by the tension between courtroom ideals and the messy human realities that shape them, you might appreciate the deeper stories collected in Neck Deep: Dissecting the American Legal System.