defense strategy to make the Government witness appear biased. Vallejo’s trial counsel elicited the statement when he asked Trotman, “And it would be fair to say, and honest to say, you, together with the agents of the Government want to see Mr. Vallejo convicted; isn’t that honest and fair?” The same tactic was also used on other Government witnesses for the same purpose. “A defendant cannot complain on appeal of alleged errors invited or induced by himself, particularly where, as here, it is not clear that the defendant was prejudiced thereby.” United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641, 660 (3d Cir.1993) (citation omitted). Even if Trotman’s comment was improper, the curative jury instruction ensured that the statement did not deprive Vallejo of a fair trial. See Riley, 621 F.3d at 339 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the District Court did not commit plain
holding that a jury is presumed to follow the trial courts instructions holding that the district courts jury instruction cured the risk of prejudice resulting from the prosecutors improper comment because juries are presumed to follow their instructions richardson v marsh 481 us 200 211 107 sct 1702 95 led2d 176 1987 holding that a jury is presumed to follow a judges instructions recognizing that this court presumes that juries follow district courts instructions holding that instruction to disregard cured error from prosecutors improper comment during voir dire