In the Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado case, a man named Peña Rodriguez was 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 there had been one juror who had made racially biased statements against Peña Rodriguez and his witness who made it clear that his statements led him to identify Peña Rodriguez as the culprit. This incident caused Peña Rodriguez to believe that he should have a new trial, however, under Colorado Rules of Evidence, Rule 606(b) blocked Peña Rodriguez's right to use statements made in jury deliberation. Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado was then taken to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices debated whether or not Rule 606(b) of the Colorado Rules of Evidence allowing evidence of racial bias to be withheld in the jury's decision was a violation against Peña Rodriguez. Sixth Amendment: Right to an Impartial Jury. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay In 2007 at the Arapahoe Race Track, three teenage girls went to the bathroom where a man came in and asked them if they wanted to have a drink and party with him where one girl left right before the man allegedly turned it off the lights and began sexually assaulting the other two. After running away and informing their father, they said the man in the bathroom was Peña Rodriguez who worked at the racetrack, but a witness later confirmed that he was not at the racetrack at the time of the attack. Ultimately, however, Peña Rodriguez was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct and harassment in state trial court. However, after being found guilty, two jurors in the trial approached Peña Rodriguez's lawyer and claimed that during the trial, one of the other jurors had made racially biased statements about him. The juror named H. C, a former law enforcement officer, is quoted as saying, "[he thought Peña Rodriguez] did it because he's Mexican, and Mexican men take what they want," and according to a Another juror reportedly said "that where he used to patrol, nine times out of 10 Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and girls."" Because of the juror's blatant racial accusations against Peña Rodriguez, Peña Rodriguez asked for a new trial but the Colorado Supreme Court denied it, in favor of Rule 606(b), which means you cannot introduce evidence regarding statements made in jury deliberations (b) did not violate Peña Rodriguez's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury because Pena-Rodriguez had not questioned the jurors beforehand about their racial biases. Ultimately, Peña Rodriguez held that this rule could not be enforced because it is a clear violation of his right to an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, which he believed only the United States Supreme Court could decide. The U.S. Supreme Court asked for a 5-3 decision in favor of Pena-Rodriguez, holding that when a juror makes a clear statement suggesting that he or she relied on racially biased opinions, there is a violation of the sixth amendment. Rule 606(b) of the Colorado Rules of Evidence cannot block evidence of clear statements of racial bias that affect the final verdict of a case. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court has.