James Oldham
93 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1457
In his 2014 article Unearthing Mansfield’s Rule: Analyzing the Appropriateness of Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) in Light of the Common Law Tradition, Andrew Hull takes issue with the Mansfield Rule, which prohibits verdict impeachment by juror testimony, and its modern-day embodiment in Rule 606(b). Hull contends that the Mansfield Rule fails to align with English common law precedent. This Essay begins by arguing that Hull is mistaken for two reasons. First, the English common law was not as well settled as Hull seems to argue. Second, there is no evidence of a twelve-judge consultation— which would have had binding precedential effect—having occurred regarding the Mansfield Rule. This Essay then explores how the Mansfield Rule has developed since 2014, when Mr. Hull’s article was published.
