should absolutely disregard any statements or references comparing this case to any other case, and you should decide this case solely on the evidence presented in this case without regard to any comparison to any other case. We presume juries can and do follow curative instructions. See United States v. Mazzone, 782 F.2d 757, 764 (7th Cir.1986) (presuming jury followed curative instruction given after prosecutor’s improper statements in closing). Considering the largely irrelevant implication of Lassar’s comparison, we believe a jury could easily follow this instruction. Finally, the Court has reviewed all of the evidence against Andreas and Wilson and can fairly characterize it as overwhelming. Cf United States v. Owens, 145 F.3d 923, 928 (7th Cir.1998); Johnson-Dix, 54 F.3d at 1305 (<HOLDING>). In Owens, 145 F.3d at 928, the prosecutor
holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense holding that because closing arguments do not constitute evidence a prosecutors statement did not implicate the confrontation clause holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify holding that prosecutors allegedly improper closing arguments regarding burden of proof defendants failure to testify and other allegations did not case serious doubt upon the correctness of the jury verdict or the fairness of the trial holding that weight of the evidence indicates that jury verdict cannot be attributed solely to prosecutors closing comment that fbi agent would not risk his career through perjury