The court based its decision on its findings that Wade (the juror who spoke with Orlando after the trial) lacked credibility, that no corroboration existed for most of Wade’s allegations, and that the allegations made by Wade that were corroborated did not prejudice the defendants. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial based upon the alleged jury irregularities. The district court conducted a thorough Remmer hearing, during which all of the empaneled jurors, the three alternate jurors, and.Martin’s wife testified. Counsel for the defendants had the opportunity to question all of the witnesses during the hearing, without any limitations other than those set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence. See id. at 96 (<HOLDING>). Although the defendants focus on the comments
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for mistrial where the trial court sustained defendants objections to a question by the prosecutor containing improper information and instructed the jury to disregard the question holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellants motion for change of judge where the appellant failed to demonstrate actual 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 holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying zelinkas motion for a mistrial based upon alleged juror bias noting that the remmer hearing was unhurried and thorough and that defense counsel were permitted to question the jurors and did so at some length