With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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,

A: 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
B: 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
C: recognizing discretion of district court in determining a fee award
D: recognizing district court application of the same rule
A.