Legal Definitions - aliunde rule

The aliunde rule is a legal principle that dictates when a jury's verdict can be challenged based on what a juror says happened during deliberations. Essentially, it means that a verdict cannot be overturned or questioned solely by a juror's testimony about misconduct or impropriety within the jury room. Instead, there must first be independent, external evidence—meaning evidence from a source other than a juror's direct statement—that suggests something improper occurred. Only after such external evidence establishes a preliminary foundation can a juror's testimony be considered to further explain or confirm the alleged issue. This rule aims to protect the finality of verdicts and prevent jurors from easily changing their minds or being pressured to discredit a verdict after it has been delivered.

Here are some examples illustrating the aliunde rule:

• Example 1: Juror Misconduct (External Research)

  After a lengthy criminal trial, a juror contacts the defense attorney claiming that another juror used their smartphone to research the defendant's prior criminal record during deliberations, despite strict instructions from the judge not to conduct independent research. Under the aliunde rule, the defense attorney cannot immediately use this juror's testimony to challenge the verdict. They would first need to present external evidence of the misconduct. For instance, if a court security camera recording showed the juror repeatedly looking at their phone during breaks in a suspicious manner, or if a court official had previously confiscated a phone from that juror during the trial, this external evidence could establish the necessary foundation. Once that foundation is laid, the juror's testimony about the specific content found on the phone and its impact on deliberations might then be considered.

• Example 2: Improper Deliberation (Chance Verdict)

  Following a civil trial involving a complex business dispute, a juror comes forward to state that the jury reached its decision on the amount of damages by flipping a coin because they were deadlocked and frustrated. This juror's statement alone would not be sufficient to overturn the verdict. To satisfy the aliunde rule, there would need to be some independent evidence of this improper method. For example, if a cleaning crew found a coin with a note indicating "guilty" or "not guilty" written on it in the jury room trash can immediately after the verdict, or if a court clerk had observed a juror bringing a coin into the jury room and heard a distinct "flip" sound, this external evidence could create the necessary foundation. Only then could the juror's testimony about the coin-flipping process be admitted to challenge the verdict.

• Example 3: External Influence (Third-Party Contact)

  A juror in a high-profile murder trial later reveals that during a lunch break, a relative of the victim approached them outside the courthouse and made threatening remarks about the consequences if the jury did not convict. Under the aliunde rule, the defense cannot simply present the juror's testimony to argue for a new trial. There must be external evidence to corroborate the juror's claim. For instance, if a court bailiff or security guard witnessed the interaction between the juror and the relative, or if surveillance footage from outside the courthouse showed the relative speaking intensely to the juror, this external evidence would lay the necessary foundation. Without such independent proof of the external contact, the testimony from the reporting juror alone would be insufficient to challenge the verdict.