Opinion ID: 433135
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Curative Instruction for Defendant Hill's Outburst

Text: 28 During Mason's testimony, Hill stated in a loud voice, He is lying. The court dismissed the jury and informed defense counsel that he intended to give a curative instruction to the effect, 29 Any comments you may have heard in the courtroom from people not under oath should be disregarded by you and play no part in your decision. 30 Defense counsel made no objection to the proposed instruction, and the court proceeded to give substantially the same instruction to the jury: 31 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, immediately prior to the break there was some statement made by some individuals in the courtroom who were not at that time testifying under oath. I would advise you that any comments you may have heard in this courtroom from people who are not under oath, should be disregarded by you and play no part in the consideration of your verdict. Do you understand that? Do you have any problems with that? All right. 32 Again, none of the defendants objected. 33 Johnson and Lister now argue that the instruction's references to some individuals and to people prejudicially implied that they were responsible for Hill's outburst. The argument is frivolous. The judge's proposed instruction referred to people, but the defendants did not object; nor did they object when the charge was given to the jury. Without an objection, the instruction must have constituted plain error for us to consider it. United States v. Smith, 700 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.1983). The alleged error here, however, was not both obvious and substantial and thus does not warrant our consideration. See id. 34