to “external” influences over the jury’s deliberations. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 117, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 2746, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987). “External” influences are factors that come to the jury’s attention from outside of the proceedings in the trial court. See, e.g., Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363, 363-64, 87 S.Ct. 468, 470, 17 L.Ed.2d 420 (1966) (per curiam) (bailiff making disparaging comments about the defendant to the jurors); Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 228-230, 74 S.Ct. 450, 450-451, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954) (bribe offered to juror). “Internal” influences, on the other hand, include actions during court proceedings and internal jury deliberations. Prohibiting testimony into these areas does not violate the constitution. Tanner, 483 U.S. at 126-27, 107 S.Ct. at 2751 (<HOLDING>). This is because other procedural devices
holding that rule 606b does not violate the sixth amendment holding district court did not violate sixth amendment by admitting defendants outofcourt statement holding that the court lacks jurisdiction over sixth amendment claims because the sixth amendment is not moneymandating holding that exclusion of defense witness does not violate sixth amendment where defendant failed to comply with discovery rule requiring that witnesses be identified before trial holding that forfeiture of funds to be used for legal fees does not violate the fifth or sixth amendment