that the jury was to scrutinize all the witnesses’ testimony carefully as part of its determination whether the government had satisfied its burden of proof on each element of the crimes charged. The sufficiency of these instructions is even more apparent when they are considered in the context of the trial as a whole. In particular, defense counsel focused heavily on the voice identification issue in cross-examining Agent Quinn and also in closing argument. Having heard these defense arguments, a jury receiving the court’s general instructions on witness credibility, the government’s burden of proof, and the limited purpose of the transcripts would understand that Agent Quinn’s testimony was to be scrutinized with care. Cf. United States v. Rubio, 834 F.2d 442, 447 (5th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>) We conclude that the court’s general jury
holding that in determining whether constructive indictment occurred court must look at the allegedly erroneous instruction in context of the charge as a whole holding that it was not reversible error to fail to answer the jurys question where the trial judge was presiding over closing arguments in a codefendants case when the question was asked and the jury reached a result before the judge could confer with the parties recognizing that a court may look to the place where the failure to receive the expected benefits was felt in determining which law to apply holding that to obtain the proper context of a challenged statement made during closing arguments the court must recount in its entirety the portion of the closing argument wherein those statements appear holding that when determining the adequacy of a jury charge an appellate court should look to the record and the closing arguments to place the words of the judge in context