With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". permitted to participate.” Id. at 229-30, 74 S.Ct. 450 (emphasis added); cf. Maj. Op. 347-48 (omitting italicized language). Remmer thus imposes on a district court two distinct obligations: a duty to investigate allegations of a juror’s exposure to an unauthorized communication and a duty to determine whether the exposure violated the defendant’s constitutional rights. See United States v. Corrado, 227 F.3d 528, 535-36 (6th Cir.2000) (stating that “ ‘when there is a credible allegation of extraneous influences, the court must investigate sufficiently to assure itself that constitutional rights of the criminal defendant have not been violated’” (quoting United States v. Rigsby, 45 F.3d 120, 124-25 (6th Cir.1995))); United States v. Shackelford, 777 F.2d 1141, 1145 (6th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); see also Williams v. Bagley, 380 F.3d 932,

A: holding that where possible juror misconduct is brought to the trial judges attention he or she has a duty to investigate and to determine whether there may have been a violation of the sixth amendment
B: holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing
C: holding that litigants have a duty to disclose their objection to a prospective juror by promptly bringing the matter to the attention of the trial court
D: 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
A.