individually or collectively, a prima facie derivative citizenship claim. See United States v. Guerrier, 428 F.3d 76, 79-80 (1st Cir.2005) (affirming district court’s exclusion of certain evidence that supported some, but not all, of the requirements for derivative citizenship). Williams argues, however, that his purpose in introducing these documents was not to raise an affirmative claim of derivative citizenship, but rather to undermine the government’s case on the theory that Schoenroek failed to definitively rule out the possibility that Williams may have derived citizenship, notwithstanding that Schoenroek was (or should have been) on notice that Williams had challenged his alienage in his prior deportation proceeding. Cf. United States v. Thompson, 37 F.3d 450, 454 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Even assuming arguendo that the district
holding that when determining prejudice under the objective test relevant considerations include 1 whether the extrinsic evidence was received by the jury and the manner in which it was received 2 whether it was available to the jury for a lengthy period of time 3 whether it was discussed and considered extensively by the jury 4 whether it was introduced before a jury verdict was reached and if so at what point during the deliberations and 5 whether it was reasonably likely to affect the verdict considering the strength of the governments case and whether the governments case outweighed any possible prejudice caused by the extrinsic evidence holding that the district court erred by not permitting defense counsel to argue to the jury that the governments case was weakened by a lack of evidence allegedly caused by its failure to investigate holding that the district court erred in requiring the defense to disclose a report which the defense did not intend to introduce into evidence and which was merely designed to aid in the crossexamination of a witness for the state holding that the district court erred when it relied on the governments representation that the property sought by the defendant had been destroyed because the government did not submit any evidence of the propertys destruction holding that under the extraordinary circumstances found by the district court it was not an abuse of discretion to order that defendants be permitted to take depositions of the witnesses in the presence of their attorney and the governments counsel