I would advise the judge to consider whether the statements of the jurors are extraneous prejudicial and included in the exception and similarly if they are considered an outside influence. On the other hand basically everything that you want to impeach can be considered extraneous.
It's a balancing act because i dont want to throw away an appropriate guilty verdict against an attempted child rapist on account of one racist juror. The defedant may not be entitled to a new trial. the counter argument is that at a new trial he can just be convicted again and you could imagine a situation in which all jurors have impermissible prejudice. But esp with the man lying about being able to be fair and impartial several times, perhaps this is extranously prejudicial. However, we do ask jurors to use their own experience and common sense to decide these things, but it should be impermissible to allow racism to be that experience. I think that this sort of thing should be its own exception, because i dont think it falls so neatly into any listed exception.
I think the first kind of evidence usually is about bringing in info that a sequestered jury shouldn't know like info from the news, talking to outsiders etc. but definitely should fall under first exception
the jury did not convict him of sexual assault. One could argue that the jury did not buy into what the cop was selling. I think that every juror may have a bias - expressed or not. The question should be what effect the prejudice of one had on the decision of the jury.
Without a better sense of the procedural details, I don't know the best strategy here. My gut instinct is to allow the court to evaluate this issue, and not ignore racism, but I don't know the impact that will have.
Under exception A, the "information" has 3 elements 1) extraneous; 2) prejudicial; 3) improperly brought. Under exception B, the "influence" must be 1) outside and 2) improperly brought. I think we need definitions of all of these terms