of citizen jurors, as well as those of .the parties” and “best comports with the fair and efficient administration of justice.” Duk v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 320 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir.2003). We give weight to those same principles by adopting the totality-of-circumstances approach here. That said, recall should be the exception rather than the convenient rule, lest the sanctity of untainted jury deliberations be compromised. In sum, we hold that, in limited circumstances, a court may recall a jury shortly after it has been dismissed to correct an error in the verdict, but only after making an appropriate inquiry to determine that the jurors were not exposed to any outside influences that would compromise their ability to fairly reconsider the verdict. , See Figueroa, 683 F.3d at 73 (<HOLDING>). In deciding whether recall is proper, the
holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion holding the pivotal inquiry is whether the jurors became susceptible to outside influences holding that double jeopardy barred the second prosecution when one of the jurors in the first trial became disabled and the trial court declared a mistrial instead of proceeding with eleven jurors holding that trial court abused its discretion in failing to make a proper inquiry of jurors andor failing to strike jurors for cause after jurors explicitly expressed bias holding that district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an adequate evidentiary hearing into the allegations of extraneous influences on the jury pursuant to the holding in remmer  and remanding for a hearing at which the defendant should be accorded the opportunity to question the jurors individually and under qath