In Gorz v. State, 749 P.2d 1349, 1355 (Alaska App. 1988), the discussion of the issue of jury experimentation is both short and conclusory: The law governing this issue is well settled. Jurors have a duty to consider only the evidence presented in open court. Thus, a juror commits misconduct by conducting an unauthorized experiment and either personally relying on the results or communicating those results to other members of the jury. Evidence that has not been subjected to the procedural safeguards of trial impinges on the constitutional rights to confrontation, cross-examination, and counsel. Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 472-73, 85 S.Ct. 546, 549-550, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965). In the present case, ... a member of the jury committed misconduct by personally determining the amount of time it would take to walk from the scene of the explosion to the Alaska Motor Inn. This point is not seriously disputed by the state. Gorz, 749 P.2d at 1355. The law on this point is well settled. Jurors have a duty to consider only the evidence presented in open court. ... Evidence that has not been subjected to the procedural safeguards of trial impinges on the constitutional rights to confrontation, cross-examination, and counsel.