discussed Cited "see" State v. Dickens See People v. Hutchinson, 71 Cal.2d 342 , 78 Cal. Rptr. 196 , 455 P.2d 132 , cert. denied, 396 U.S. 994 , 90 S.Ct. 491 , 24 L.Ed.2d 457 (1969); but see Wilson, 54 Ariz. at 243 , 94 P.2d at 871 (when concealment is first discovered in jury room by fellow jurors and obtained solely as a result of deliberation process, one juror’s affidavit of another’s concealed bias or qualifications is inadmissible to impeach verdict) (Wilson, however, was decided before Rule 24.1(d) was adopted); cf. McEwen, 6 Ariz. App. at 153 , 430 P.2d at 732 (affidavit from the offending juror is admissible).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Donald O. Coe v. Otis Thurman, Warden The reason for such a rule is that “even if the federal constitutional question raised by the habe-as corpus petitioner cannot be resolved in a pending state appeal, that appeal may result in the reversal of the petitioner’s conviction on some other ground, thereby mooting the federal question.” Id. (citing Davidson v. Klinger, 411 F.2d 746, 747 (9th Cir.1969)); see also Daniels v. Nelson, 415 F.2d 323 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 994 , 90 S.Ct. 494 , 24 L.Ed.2d 459 (1969).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pittsburgh National Bank v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York (2×) See also, People v. Hutchinson, 71 Cal.2d 342, 346 , 455 P.2d 132, 136 , cert. denied, 396 U.S. 994 , 90 S.Ct. 491 , 24 L.Ed.2d 457 (1969).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Fidler See also People v. Hutchinson, 71 Cal. 2d 342, 349, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 994 (1969); People v. DeLucia, 20 N.Y.2d 275, 278-279 (1967). 5 *197 We think our rule limiting juror testimony to the existence of extraneous "disturbing” influences protects jurors and their verdicts.