In the case of Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado, a man named Peña Rodriguez had been convicted of sexual conduct and harassment by the Colorado Supreme Court. However, after the final verdict, the other jurors brought to Peña Rodriguez's attention that a juror had made statements of racial bias against Peña Rodriguez and his witness, which made it clear that his statements had caused him to designate Peña Rodriguez as guilty. This incident led Peña Rodriguez to believe he should be given a new trial, but Rule 606(b) of the Colorado Rules of Evidence blocked Peña Rodriguez's right to use statements made during jury deliberations . Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado was then taken to the United States Supreme Court, where the justices debated whether or not Rule 606(b) of the Colorado Rules of Evidence, allowing the concealment of evidence of racial bias in a juror's decision, constituted a violation of the decision of Peña Rodriguez. The Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"? Get the original essay In 2007, at the Arapahoe Race Track, three teenage girls entered the bathroom where a man entered and attacked them. asked if they wanted to have a drink and party with him during which one girl left just before the man turned off the lights and began sexually assaulting the other two. After running away and telling their father, they said the man in the toilet was Peña Rodriguez who was working on the track, but later a witness confirmed that he was not on the track at time of the attack. Ultimately, Peña Rodriguez was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct and harassment in state trial court. However, after being found guilty, two jurors in his trial went to Peña Rodriguez's lawyer and claimed that during the trial one of the other jurors made racist statements about him. Juror named H. C, a former law enforcement officer, reportedly said, "[he thought Peña Rodriguez] did it because he's Mexican and Mexican men take what they want." and, according to another juror, he said, "that where he patrolled, nine times out of ten, the Mexicans were guilty of being aggressive toward women and girls." denied it, in favor of their 606(b) rule, which means one cannot introduce evidence regarding statements made during jury deliberations. The Colorado Supreme Court also affirmed that Rule 606(b) did not violate Peña Rodriguez's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. because Pena-Rodriguez had not asked jurors about their racial biases beforehand. Ultimately, Peña Rodriguez reasoned that this rule could not be used because it is a blatant violation of his right to an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, on which he believed only the State Supreme Court -United States would be able to decide. The U.S. Supreme Court called for a 5-3 decision in favor of Pena-Rodriguez, arguing that when a juror makes a clear statement suggesting he relied on racist views, there is a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Rule 606(b) of the Colorado Rules of Evidence cannot block evidence of overt statements of racial bias that affect the final verdict of a case. Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Colorado Supreme Court's judgment. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the 5-3 majority opinion, explaining that if a juror clearly states that he.