§ 90.607, Fla. Stat. — Competency of the Judge and Jurors as Witnesses
Plain English
Two people in the courtroom can’t flip into the witness chair. The presiding judge may not testify as a witness in the trial they’re running (no objection is even needed to preserve the point) — though by agreement of the parties the judge may give evidence on a purely formal matter. And a sitting juror may not testify as a witness in the trial. Importantly, when someone later attacks a verdict, a juror generally cannot testify about matters that essentially inhere in the verdict — the no-impeachment-of-the-verdict rule that protects jury deliberations from being second-guessed.
From the Courtroom
After a tough verdict, the instinct is to chase down jurors and ask what happened in the room. 90.607(2)(b) is the wall: a juror can’t testify about what “inheres in the verdict.” Outside influences may be a different story — but the mental processes of deliberation are largely off-limits.
Key Points & Authority
- § 90.607(1), Fla. Stat. — The presiding judge is not competent to testify in the trial (no objection needed); by agreement the judge may address a purely formal matter.
- § 90.607(2): a sitting juror is not competent to testify in the trial, and may not testify to matters essentially inhering in the verdict on a challenge to its validity.
- Federal parallel: Fed. R. Evid. 605 (judge) and 606 (juror).
Federal Parallel
The federal counterparts are Fed. R. Evid. 605 (the presiding judge may not testify) and FRE 606 (a juror’s competency, including the limits on impeaching a verdict).
About this rule walkthrough
Part of The Evidence Code, hosted by John M. Phillips — Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer, Court TV analyst, admitted in 8 states + 9 federal districts + SCOTUS.
Free consultation: (904) 444-4444 · About John Phillips
Educational only — not legal advice.
Rule Text (verbatim from the Florida Supreme Court)
(1)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), the judge presiding at the trial of an action is not competent to testify as a witness in that trial. An objection is not necessary to preserve the point. (b) By agreement of the parties, the trial judge may give evidence on a purely formal matter to facilitate the trial of the action.
(2)(a) A member of the jury is not competent to testify as a witness in a trial when he or she is sitting as a juror. If the juror is called to testify, the opposing party shall be given an opportunity to object out of the presence of the jury. (b) Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment.
Educational reference. Educational only — not legal advice.
What this rule means in plain English
Section 90.607 makes the presiding judge incompetent to testify in the trial (objection unnecessary) and a sitting juror incompetent to testify in the trial, and bars a juror from testifying to matters essentially inhering in the verdict.