context: Instead, it was given only after closing arguments had been completed and, even then, after a fifteen-minute recess. Therefore, there was nothing directly linking this jury instruction to the prosecutor's misconduct.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 227 F.3d 1064, 1069
citation_a.parenthetical: prejudice caused by prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument was not cured because the district court issued no curative instructions where the defense failed to object to the misconduct
citation_a.sentence: Cf. United States v. Cruz-Padilla, 227 F.3d 1064, 1069 (8th Cir.2000) (prejudice caused by prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument was not cured because the district court issued no curative instructions where the defense failed to object to the misconduct).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: trial judge's instructions did not cure the error caused by the misconduct because "[n]o curative instructions were given at the time of defense's objections" and the "judge did not mention the prosecutor's improper comments" during his general charge to the jury
citation_b.sentence: See Lent v. Wells, 861 F.2d 972, 977 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1100, 109 S.Ct. 1577, 103 L.Ed.2d 943 (1989) (trial judge’s instructions did not cure the error caused by the misconduct because “[n]o curative instructions were given at the time of defense’s objections” and the “judge did not mention the prosecutor’s improper comments” during his general charge to the jury); see also Smith, 500 F.2d at 298 (cautionary instruction did not neutralize the prejudice of comments that called attention to the defendants’ failure to testify because it “failed expressly to instruct the jury that no adverse inference could be drawn from [the defendants’] silence”).