Aliunde rule is a principle of evidence law which says that the verdict of a jury may not be impeached by the evidence of a member of the jury unless foundation for the introduction of such evidence is first laid by competent evidence alunde, i. e., by evidence from some other source. This rule is designed to protect the finality of verdicts and to ensure that jurors are insulated from harassment by defeated parties. The aliunde rule is recognized by the courts since the day of Lord Mansfield who is supposed to have first announced it in the case of Vaise v. Delaval, 1 T. R., 11 (K. B.), 99 Eng. Rep. R., 944.
Among the reasons given by the courts for the adoption of this rule are that a juror comes into court with bad grace in attempting to prove his dishonorable conduct and to stigmatize his companions; that the rule is based upon considerations of public policy, which, if not adhered to, would encourage further litigation and indefinitely postpone its termination; that to permit a juror to impeach the verdict by his testimony would allow a dissatisfied or corrupt juror to destroy a verdict after he had assented to it; and that to permit such testimony would destroy the privacy of the deliberations of the jury and expose the jurors to criticisms and embarrassment. This rule has been severely criticized by some courts, has been repudiated by others, and has been changed by statute in some jurisdictions. [State v. Adams, 48 N.E.2d 861, 863 (Ohio 1943)]
Ohio Rule of Evidence 606(B) codifies the aliunde rule and states that "the verdict of a jury may not be impeached by the evidence of a member of the jury unless foundation for the introduction of such evidence is first laid by competent evidence from some other source."[Jones v. Bagley, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125163 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 31, 2009)]