What is the proper post-trial evidentiary hearing for the prosecution to argue its case against the jury in a sexual assault case?

A post-trial evidentiary hearing is not necessarily insufficient in such case. (See Smith v. Phillips (1981) 455 U.S. 209, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78.) In the instant case however, the jury affidavits failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice and, because of the potentially injurious nature of the inadmissible evidence given to the jury, we cannot be assured that the prosecution's burden had not been lightened. It follows, consequently, that we cannot say appellant did not suffer prejudice. We hold that when similar jury misconduct is brought to the court's attention in future cases, the preferred procedure is to question the jurors in chambers to ascertain knowledge and prejudice, if any, to defendant and, based upon the information obtained, decide whether the proper remedy is admonishment, instruction or mistrial.