now claims that he was denied his due process right to a fair trial, faulting the district court both for admitting the marriage certificate without redacting the Fishkill reference, and for denying his post-verdict motion for a new trial based on this alleged error. These arguments are unconvincing. 1. No Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Conviction Was Considered by the Jury in this Case Preliminarily, we observe that Snype frames his due process challenge as one based on the jury’s improper exposure to “extrinsic” information. See United States v. Schwarz, 283 F.3d 76, 97 (2d Cir.2002) (ordering new trial based on jury’s exposure to “extrinsic information” in the form of press accounts of co-defendant’s admissions at guilty plea); United States v. Moten, 582 F.2d 654, 664 (2d Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). We reject this characterization. The jury
recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights holding that defendant has constitutional right to be tried by impartial jury unprejudiced by extraneous influence holding that extraneous information which is unrelated to the case being tried is not prejudicial holding that a criminal defendants right to an impartial jury is guaranteed by article 1 section 9 of the pennsylvania constitution holding that a defendant is entitled to be tried by 12 not 9 or even 10 impartial and unprejudiced jurors