of jurors’ agreement to be bound to vote in accordance with longer of two lists of facts making defendant guilty and not guilty), with Editorial Caballero, S.A. de C.V. v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 359 S.W.3d 318, 325 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2012, pet. denied) (“Personal pressures felt by jurors to wrap up the deliberations do not constitute outside influences.”), Rosell v. Cent. W. Motor Stages, Inc., 89 S.W.3d 643, 660-61 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, pet. denied) (reasoning that bailiff informing jury that it would have to deliberate another day unless a decision was reached was neutral information that would not persuade a juror to decide the case in any particular manner), and Kirby Forest Indus., Inc. v. Kirkland, 772 S.W.2d 226, 234 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). Although juror Aguilera changed his vote to
holding in a case where the plaintiff had argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend its judgment more than ten days after entry because that is the time limit under federal rule of civil procedure 59 that a district court can amend its judgment because of mistake or inadvertence months after judgment has been entered pursuant to rule 60b of the federal rules of civil procedure holding testimony of two jurors that they changed their votes because of pressures to return to work was inadmissible because such pressures were not outside influences within the meaning of rule 606b and rule of civil procedure 327 holding that federal rule of civil procedure rule 6a applies to the calculation of the aedpas oneyear limitations period holding that rule 606b does not violate the sixth amendment holding that information disclosed to jurors as a result of their presence at trial ie that the defendant did not testify did not constitute extraneous prejudicial information within the meaning of the rule 606b exception