actually beyond the jury’s competence. No such showing was made in the instant matter. The crimes here may have been large in number and variety, but they were rather ordinary in nature, except in their viciousness. The evidence could also be understood without difficulty, the alleged complexity stemming more from the abundance of evidence than from the subtlety of the analysis needed to consider it. DiNome, 954 F.2d at 842 (quoted in Baker, 10 F.3d at 1388). Although the inclusion of several RICO and VICAR counts make this case more difficult in terms of the legal concepts involved than was true for Baker and the Second Circuit cases that it cites, the predicate or underlying crimes alleged are well within the ability of the ordinary juror to understand. See Baker, 10 F.3d at 1388 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, given the district court’s careful
holding that it was not plain error for the district court to find the police officers identification of a defendant as a member of the fresno bulldogs gang and testimony about the nature and identifying characteristics of the organization including drug distribution were relevant in a drug conspiracy case recognizing in dicta that the juror affidavit submitted in support of the second new trial motion was obtained in clear violation of the district courts order and the courts local rule against juror interviews  on this basis alone the district court would have been acting within its discretion in disregarding the affidavit holding that trial courts denial of motion for new trial based on juror misconduct was justified where there was no evidence presented at hearing on motion that juror had knowingly concealed relevant litigation experience during voir dire and identity of juror as county court litigant was not demonstrated holding that drug manufacturing and distribution even on such a large scale as in this case is not beyond the competence of the ordinary juror holding that a communication between the judge and juror which is unrelated to the case being tried is not improper and prejudicial