juror in this case? (Emphasis added.) Smith contends the court’s remark that he was a Native American “had the effect of relieving the government of its burden of proving ... that Smith is an Indian.” We disagree. Given the context of the district court’s statement, the prospective jurors likely understood the court’s remark as part of an inquiry into potential prejudice, not as a comment on forthcoming evidence. Moreover, at the close of trial, the court instructed the jury not to “read into ... anything the court may have said or done any suggestion as to what verdict you should return.” Although this instruction was rather general, it was sufficient to cure any potential mis-impression arising from the court’s comment. See United States v. McGill, 604 F.2d 1252, 1255 (9th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. * This disposition is not
holding almost any improper argument may be cured by an instruction to disregard holding that a trial judge is obliged to give a correct jury instruction notwithstanding that request for instruction was technically erroneous if the evidence generates the subject matter of the jury instruction holding that in a criminal trial the trial court must correct or amend an improper instruction if the proper instruction is necessary for the jury to understand the case holding that instruction to disregard cured error from prosecutors improper comment during voir dire holding that a judges comment on the issues in the case although not technically correct could be cured by instruction