context: In light of the district court judge's extensive curative instructions, the strength of the evidence of Scott's guilt on the offenses for which he was convicted, and the jury's independence in rejecting five of the alleged predicate acts, we conclude that Scott was not prejudiced by any improper conduct on the judge's part, either individually or in the aggregate.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 376 F.3d 1002, 1009
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that the trial judge's misconduct at trial did not prejudice the defendant in light of the court's curative instructions
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Morgan, 376 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that the trial judge’s misconduct at trial did not prejudice the defendant in light of the court’s curative instructions); see also United States v. McDonald, 576 F.2d 1350, 1358 (9th Cir.1978) (noting that while charges of judicial misconduct are not “dismissed lightly,” and although a few of the judge’s remarks were “sharp, even sarcastic,” they did not warrant a new trial).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 576 F.2d 1350, 1358
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that while charges of judicial misconduct are not "dismissed lightly," and although a few of the judge's remarks were "sharp, even sarcastic," they did not warrant a new trial
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Morgan, 376 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that the trial judge’s misconduct at trial did not prejudice the defendant in light of the court’s curative instructions); see also United States v. McDonald, 576 F.2d 1350, 1358 (9th Cir.1978) (noting that while charges of judicial misconduct are not “dismissed lightly,” and although a few of the judge’s remarks were “sharp, even sarcastic,” they did not warrant a new trial).