New York Times

WASHINGTON — After a truncated and unusually one-sided argument, the Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared unlikely to allow jurors to testify about their deliberations, even to expose dishonesty during jury selection.

“What’s involved here is a juror reporting what she heard during the deliberations,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. “And it seems to me that’s exactly the kind of thing that is not permitted.”

The case arose from a collision between a truck and a motorcycle in which the rider lost part of his leg. The rider sued and lost.

A few days after the trial, one of the jurors told the rider’s lawyer that the jury’s forewoman, Regina Whipple, seemed biased in favor of the truck driver.

According to the juror, Ms. Whipple said during deliberations that her daughter had also been responsible for a fatal accident and had dreaded being sued. (Ms. Whipple has disputed the juror’s account.)

The injured rider sought a new trial based on the juror’s sworn statement, saying that Ms. Whipple should have been more forthcoming during jury selection. But lower courts refused to consider the statement, relying onSupreme Court precedents and a federal rule of evidence that bars most testimony from jurors “during an inquiry into the validity of a verdict.”

On Wednesday, Kannon K. Shanmugam, a lawyer for the rider, said his client was concerned not about the validity of the verdict but about whether Ms. Whipple should have been allowed to serve. He said his client’s right to an impartial jury should outweigh the interests in secret deliberations and the finality of jury verdicts.

Justice Elena Kagan said Mr. Shanmugam was slicing things too fine. “One reason that a verdict can be invalid has to do with what happens in the jury room,” she said. “And another reason why a verdict can be invalid might have to do with the composition of the jury itself.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said he was worried that allowing testimony about deliberations would lead to litigation gamesmanship, with lawyers asking elaborate questions during jury selection in the hope that they could later seek new trials based on what was said during deliberations.

Mr. Shanmugam responded that California and other states allowed such inquiries and had not experienced problems.

Mr. Shanmugam was peppered with questions, which is commonplace at the Supreme Court. His adversary, Sheila L. Birnbaum, was allowed to talk for long stretches, which is unusual. And Sarah E. Harrington, a lawyer for the federal government, there to support Ms. Birnbaum’s side, received no questions, which is virtually unheard-of.

Studies, including one from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. while he was a federal appeals court judge, have demonstrated that the side that gets the most questions is likely to lose. “The secret to successful advocacy,” he wrote, playfully, “is simply to get the court to ask your opponent more questions.”

Some justices did seem troubled by one issue only indirectly implicated by the case, Warger v. Schauers, No. 13-517. Justices Kagan and Alito both asked whether there should be an exception for juror dishonesty about racial bias.

Ms. Birnbaum said the issue should be left to Congress. “Certainly,” she said, “Congress knew about racial bias and ethnic bias when it was writing these rules and passing these rules.”

Justice Antonin Scalia said the Supreme Court should not start making exceptions.

“How about religious bias?” he asked. “Is that also an exception? What about bias against handicapped people?”

Most Supreme Court arguments last an hour. This one, reflecting the light questioning in its second half, took just 50 minutes.