are supposed to have, we find the Ninth Circuit’s more recent decision- in Grotemeyer v. Hickman more convincing. Grotemeyer, 393 F.3d 871. Similar to the case at hand, the Grotemeyer concluded that even a juror’s specialized professional training is not beyond the bounds of permissible personal experience. Id. at 878, 880. Specifically, the court held that the opinions of a jury foreman, who was a physician, that defendant was mentally ill and would receive treatment as part of a sentence was not extraneous information. See also Crawford v. Head, 311 F.3d 1288, 1331 (11th Cir.2002) (nursing student juror’s statements explaining scientific tests conducted' on hair and blood samples at issue in murder case not extraneous); Cocconi v. Pierre Hotel, 146 F.Supp.2d 427, 432 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (<HOLDING>). Juror No. 6’s conduct did not amount to the
holding it was not improper for corporate travel consultant to convey her occupational knowledge of the new york hotel industry to fellow jurors because such information concerns the general reputations of wellknown public places and in any event was not prejudicial holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york holding that a divorce granted at a foreign consulate in new york was not valid for immigration purposes because it did not comply with new york law holding that neither the new york location of the terrorist attack giving rise to the policyholders claim nor the new yorkbased claims adjustor rendered new york the locus of operative facts because new york was not the site of the contracts execution