argues that Davis’ allegation is unfounded and that he has failed to tender any support for his claim. The Government asserts that all of the affidavits filed with this Court reveal that, although Judge Riley often spoke with jurors, the conversations dealt with mundane subject matters such as the weather, not the substance of the cases pending before him. Thus, the Government contends that Davis has failed to meet his burden of establishing that an ex parte communication occurred between Judge Riley and the jury on Monday, December 14,1998. However, as for Davis’ allegation that Judge Riley made comments to the jury outside the presence of Davis and counsel regarding the firearms and ammunition evidence, the Government asserts that further inquiry must be made 5, 1247 (11th C3r.l988)(<HOLDING>). Furthermore, “[a] determination of jury
holding that illegal ex parte contacts with an agency only make agency action voidable so prejudice must be shown holding that trial court erred in granting ex parte temporary injunction prohibiting marketing activities of defendant company because there had been no showing that plaintiff company would likely suffer irreparable harm or lacked an adequate remedy at law holding that a defendant must make a colorable showing that an ex parte communication occurred holding that the defendant must show that improper communication of extrinsic information had likely occurred holding that prejudice must be shown from an ex parte communication