context: In further contrast to Dubria, any curative statement made by the judge was not sufficient to avoid the injurious !effect on the verdict. Given the highly inflammatory content of the tape suggesting that the medical evidence was far more conclusive than it actually was, even with a curative instruction, the injurious effect on the jury's verdict could not have been mitigated.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 224 F.3d 1002, 1002
citation_a.parenthetical: "This is not a case in which the statements at issue are so clearly prejudicial that a curative instruction could not mitigate their effect."
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Gillespie, 852 F.2d 475, 479 (9th Cir.1988) (finding under the circumstances that “the trial court’s curative instruction to the jury was not sufficient to obviate the prejudice”); cf. Dubria, 224 F.3d at 1002 (“This is not a case in which the statements at issue are so clearly prejudicial that a curative instruction could not mitigate their effect.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 852 F.2d 475, 479
citation_b.parenthetical: finding under the circumstances that "the trial court's curative instruction to the jury was not sufficient to obviate the prejudice"
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Gillespie, 852 F.2d 475, 479 (9th Cir.1988) (finding under the circumstances that “the trial court’s curative instruction to the jury was not sufficient to obviate the prejudice”); cf. Dubria, 224 F.3d at 1002 (“This is not a case in which the statements at issue are so clearly prejudicial that a curative instruction could not mitigate their effect.”).