October Term 2014 · Docket 13-517

Can a juror's dishonesty about personal experience trigger a new trial?

The dispute centers on whether a juror's false statement about their ability to judge damages fairly requires a new trial.

Official caption
Warger v. Shauers
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. Harrington stated that any new trial hearing tests verdict validity.

    Mr. Shanmugam cited McDonough v. Greenwood to support his position.

    Ms. Birnbaum argued that Rule 606 language is clear and limiting.

    Justice Alito asked if receiving such testimony would be permissible.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the scope of Rule 606. This rule limits evidence used to challenge a verdict. the side that brought the case argues dishonesty at voir dire always warrants a new trial. the opposing side argues the rule bars such evidence unless it affects the verdict.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 8, 2014.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants a new trial based on the juror's dishonesty.

the opposing side wants the jury's verdict to stand.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues dishonesty at voir dire always requires a new trial.

the opposing side argues Rule 606 bars evidence of juror statements.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the inquiry into juror statements is too broad.

Justice Ginsburg asked if any jury room comment reflects on voir dire.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of challenging jury verdicts. It determines when juror statements can overturn a trial. The outcome affects the finality of civil judgments. It shapes how courts handle juror credibility issues.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON