The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case testing whether judges may inquire into allegations of racial bias in jury deliberations. The court was divided, though the justices seemed to agree the case before them presented “smoking gun” evidence of racial discrimination.

Legal rules in most states bar judges from hearing testimony about jury deliberations after a trial is over. While the Supreme Court has generally upheld these rules, it has left open whether such juror inquires might be justified in extreme cases.

…

Representing the defendant, Stanford Law School Professor Jeffrey Fisher said the ban on post-verdict inquiries into racial bias violates the Constitution’s guarantee of a trial by an impartial jury.

Racial stereotypes, standing apart from any other kinds of bias, are “uniquely poisonous” in light of our history and constitutional system, Fisher told the justices.

…

Fisher said that this case is about race only, and he noted that the court has previously treated racial discrimination differently from other types of discrimination in the criminal justice system.

“The question is the timing of when somebody has to object,” Justice Stephen Breyer observed. And the state’s point is that, if we allow objections after the verdict, it will “open the door to all kinds of evils.”

Fisher replied that the defense can’t object to juror racial bias during deliberations because lawyers aren’t in the jury room to hear what goes on. He said that’s why some 20 jurisdictions allow inquiry when there is evidence afterward of a jury verdict tainted by race.