trial, but none are on point. In some, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was not as strong as in this case. See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez Cortes, 949 F.2d 532, 543 (1st Cir. 1991) (noting the case was “very close”); United States v. Doe, 903 F.2d 16, 28 (D.C.Cir.1990) (finding prejudice from comments about defendant’s nationality where the evidence was “hardly overwhelming”). In others, the comments were irrelevant. See, e.g., United States v. Cabrera, 222 F.3d 590, 596 (9th Cir.2000) (noting references to the defendants’ ancestry were “improper and inadmissible” under the Federal Rules of Evidence). In most of these cases, the prosecution attorneys attempted to draw direct links between the defendants’ nationalities and the charged crimes. See, e.g., Doe, 903 F.2d at 20 (<HOLDING>). None of these facts are present here. III.
holding that  2k21b5 applied where the defendant had reason to believe that the firearms were sold to drug abusers and to violent drug dealers whom the defendant feared holding comments which focused on monopolization of the local drug market by dealers tracing their ancestry to jamaica and strongly suggested that appellants were guilty because two of them are jamaican were prejudicial holding that plaintiffs had standing because they were directly affected by the laws and practices against which their complaints were directed holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan holding that prior drug convictions that were four ten and eleven years old were not so remote from the charged drug offenses as to render them inadmissible