Opinion ID: 12692
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: During Direct Examination

Text: 39 Fletcher also contends that the district court erred by refusing to give a curative instruction after the prosecutor asked the following question of FBI Agent Eric Johnson: When you talked to ... Sam Fletcher, do you recall him mentioning anything about robbing banks? Fletcher insists that this question was extremely prejudicial because it suggested to the jurors that Fletcher had admitted to robbing a bank. 40 We do not think that the effect of this question is nearly as prejudicial as Fletcher maintains. Before Agent Johnson could respond to the query, Fletcher's counsel objected, and the district court instructed the prosecutor to move to another area of inquiry. Later, outside the presence of the jury, the court determined that Fletcher's alleged admission was inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). However, he refused to give a curative instruction to the jury, stating: 41 Well, the jury ... has already been told and will be told again at the end of the case [that] ... what the attorneys say is not evidence and to disregard questions when objections are raised and not to speculate on what the answers would have been. At this stage I don't think [a curative instruction] would be appropriate. I'm having a hard time thinking of how I could make the point to the jury without reminding them of what the question was, which I think would defeat the purpose that you have suggested. 42 We fully agree with the court's reasoning. Juries are presumed to follow the instructions of the court. See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 540-41, 113 S.Ct. 933, 938-39, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993).