Based on the above precedent, we have no doubt that the juror’s note in question concerns purely internal matters. It states that the other jurors “overwhelmingly bullied [her] into focusing on only the [government’s] evidence,” “guided [her] into disregarding all the evidence” that supported Foster’s case, and used their “age” and “occupational eliteness” as “swaying tactics” during deliberations. (R. 383, USCA 2201-04) Such statements lie at the heart of evidence made inadmissible by Rule 606(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Rule excludes evidence regarding “any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations,” its “effect ... on that juror’s ... vote,” and “any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict.” See also Warger, 135 S.Ct. at 524 (<HOLDING>). A juror’s professional experiences,
holding that rule 606b precludes a party seeking a new trial from using one jurors affidavit of what another juror said in deliberations to demonstrate the other jurors dishonesty during voir dire holding that absence of defendants from part of voir dire discussing trial publicity with prospective jurors was error under rule 43 holding that the extent to which parties may examine prospective jurors on voir dire lies within the trial judges discretion holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice holding questions meant to expose jurors bias and tendencies permitted during voir dire