communication with a juror or the jury from an outside source that presents a likelihood of affecting the verdict”); United States v. Pennell, 737 F.2d 521, 532 (6th Cir.1984) (observing that “Remmer ... controls the question of how the district court should proceed where ... allegations [of potential jury partiality] are made, i.e., a hearing must be held during which the defendant is entitled to be heard”). Here, after individually interviewing each juror and alternate juror, the district court learned that most had indeed heard the reported “racist redneck” comment. The court thus should have provided Taylor a meaningful opportunity to prove actual bias. Because the court denied Taylor’s request for a Remmer hearing, it abused its discretion. See Herndon, 156 F.3d at 637 (<HOLDING>); see also Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28,
holding that the defendant by not bringing his knowledge of possible juror bias to the attention of the district court prior to verdict waived his right to a new trial recognizing district court application of the same rule recognizing discretion of district court in determining a fee award holding that preservation for review requires a fair ruling or decision by the district court in order to provide the lower court with an opportunity to correct any mistake give the opposing party an opportunity to demonstrate why the district court should rule in its favor and create a record which enables this court to make informed decisions holding that although this court affords broad discretion to the district court in determining the type of investigation necessary to determine juror bias the district court must provide the defendant a meaningful opportunity to prove the same