to serve as a fair and impartial juror. The import of asking the juror whether she could put the comment aside and decide the case based solely on the evidence and law given by the court is not inconsequential. A district court “may rely [on a juror’s assurance of continued impartiality] in deciding whether a defendant has satisfied the burden of proving actual prejudice,” if the court finds the juror’s assurance credible. United States v. Pennell, 737 F.2d 521, 533 (6th Cir.1984) (discussing Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982)). But absent such assurance, the court cannot fully assess whether a juror who is exposed to an outside communication can remain impartial. See Corrado, 227 F.3d at 537; United States v. Davis, 177 F.3d 552, 557 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). For example, in Pennell, this court held the
holding that a reasonable man would be convinced that the trial judges impartiality might be questioned where the judge commented that defendant had broken faith with the court at his first trial by consenting to the judge visiting the jury room but then raising the issue on appeal and stated that he intended to increase defendants sentence because of these circumstances 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 that because the trial judge did not inquire of the remaining jurors whether they were influenced in any manner  further inquiry seems not only appropriate but necessary to ensure the impartiality of the jury holding that a defendant was not entitled to a relief under section 2255 when he asserted that the sentencing judge who was not the trial judge was influenced by the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a codefendant holding that the unobjected to statements made by the prosecutor did not indicate an intent on the part of the prosecuting attorney to inflame the minds of the jurors or to arouse passion or prejudice against the defendant nor were they so inflammatory that the jurors might be influenced to determine guilt on factors outside the evidence and thus there was no misconduct