the improper juror contact, the court was entitled to infer the opposite from their testimony. See United States v. Allison, 908 F.2d 1531, 1535 (11th Cir.1990). Thus, the court did not clearly err in finding that William and Chantal indirectly were involved in the improper juror contact. The issue that we must now resolve is whether the court abused its discretion by excluding the Roberts Affidavit with respect to William and Chantal in light of its finding that they violated Local Rule 5.01(d). In excluding the affidavit, the court concluded that “a criminal defendant must not be allowed to benefit from evidence he or she caused to be obtained in violation of the prohibitions against unauthorized post-verdict contact of jurors.” (R.22-972 at 42.) William and Chantal conte Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). Concomitant with the district court’s power
holding trial judge was at the very limit of his discretion in refusing to remove prospective jurors for cause recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge holding statute stating that judge could excuse jurors was violated when jury commissioners excused jurors recognizing our authority to order suspension of a judge recognizing power of trial judge to order all postverdict investigation of jurors to be conducted under his supervision