context: Lastly, this Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs assertion that this testimony must be excluded under Rule 403 because a jury might improperly assume that Skinner is an expert and that her conclusion that the questioned writing belongs to Plaintiff is correct. (R. 26, Pl.'s Reply Br. at 6.) A proper limiting instruction to the jury, upon the request of counsel, will sufficiently limit any such potential prejudice.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 15 F.3d 635, 641
citation_a.parenthetical: a jury is presumed to have followed the district court's instructions
citation_a.sentence: Cf. United States v. Kreiser, 15 F.3d 635, 641 (7th Cir.1994) (a jury is presumed to have followed the district court’s instructions).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 28 F.3d 604, 608
citation_b.parenthetical: finding that the district court's limiting instruction dispelled any potential prejudice against the plaintiff
citation_b.sentence: See Berry v. Deloney, 28 F.3d 604, 608 (7th Cir.1994) (finding that the district court’s limiting instruction dispelled any potential prejudice against the plaintiff).