With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". from the Nevers juror attests to that juror’s own exposure, but says nothing about whether the juror discussed the reports with other jurors or whether other members of the panel had also heard the reports. From the affidavits, one can only be certain of exposure by one Budzyn juror and at least two Nevers jurors. Consequently, defendants have not produced sufficient evidence that either panel, in its entirety, was tainted by the reports. While it is not necessary to a finding of prejudice that the entire panel be exposed, the number of jurors exposed to the prejudicial information is relevant to determining the possibility of prejudice. Watkins, supra. The lack of proof of extensive juror exposure to these reports weighs against a new trial. See United States v Ruggiero, supra (<HOLDING>). Even if defendants had shown extensive juror

A: holding that one jurors exposure to extraneous information concerning prior criminal acts of the defendant which she did not disclose to the other jurors before they rendered a verdict did not merit a new trial
B: holding that information disclosed to jurors as a result of their presence at trial ie that the defendant did not testify did not constitute extraneous prejudicial information within the meaning of the rule 606b exception
C: holding that trial court abused its discretion in failing to make a proper inquiry of jurors andor failing to strike jurors for cause after jurors explicitly expressed bias
D: holding that jurors posttrial statements that she was coerced into rendering a verdict with which she did not agree could not be considered by the trial court in reviewing a motion for a new trial
A.