77, 566 N.W.2d 229 (1997), and Hoffman v. Spartan Stores, Inc., 197 Mich.App. 289, 494 N.W.2d 811 (1992)).) Petitioner contends that the denial of a new trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by an impartial jury. The claim is without merit. The Supreme Court long has recognized the common-law rule prohibiting the admission of juror testimony to impeach a jury verdict. See Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 117-18, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987) (citing history beginning in 1785). The Court has acknowledged, however, that certain kinds of external influences on the jury may implicate the guarantee of a fair trial by an impartial jury. See Tanner, 483 U.S. at 117-18, 126-27, 107 S.Ct. 2739; Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 85 S.Ct. 546, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965) (<HOLDING>); Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 230,
holding jury trial waiver valid despite defendants argument that district court failed to clearly distinguish between jury trial bench trial and the use of stipulated facts holding that the sixth amendments guarantee of a trial by jury requires the jury to base its verdict only on the evidence presented at trial recognizing the right to waive a jury trial holding that a trial judge cannot usurp the function of the jury as triers of fact if the amount awarded by their verdict is supported by sufficient evidence and is reached by a fair and impartial jury holding that the regular association during trial between the jury and two deputy sheriffs who testified at trial undermined the defendants right to a fair trial by an impartial jury