context: In both instances, the jury was given a curative instruction. No evidence or information has been presented to counter the presumption that jurors follow the instructions given by the court.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: there is an "almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions."
citation_a.sentence: See Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987) (there is an “almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions.”); see also United States v. Harper, 466 F.3d 634, 647 (8th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1273, 127 S.Ct. 1504, 167 L.Ed.2d 242 (2007) (“[W]e presume juries to be composed of prudent, intelligent individuals, and we will not speculate whether jurors disregard the court’s instructions of law or their oaths.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 466 F.3d 634, 647
citation_b.parenthetical: "[W]e presume juries to be composed of prudent, intelligent individuals, and we will not speculate whether jurors disregard the court's instructions of law or their oaths."
citation_b.sentence: See Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987) (there is an “almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions.”); see also United States v. Harper, 466 F.3d 634, 647 (8th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1273, 127 S.Ct. 1504, 167 L.Ed.2d 242 (2007) (“[W]e presume juries to be composed of prudent, intelligent individuals, and we will not speculate whether jurors disregard the court’s instructions of law or their oaths.”).