as a popularity contest nor should it be used to measure or compare the skill or cleverness of the lawyers involved.” Juries are presumed to follow jury instructions, Brown v. Ornoski, 503 F.3d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir.2007), and such instructions can “alleviat[e] any appearance of impartiality the judge’s questioning may have conveyed,” Kennedy, 901 F.2d at 710. In light of the district court judge’s extensive curative instructions, the strength of the evidence of Scott’s guilt on the offenses for which he was convicted, and the jury’s independence in rejecting five of the alleged predicate acts, we conclude that Scott was not prejudiced by any improper conduct on the judge’s part, either individually or in the aggregate. See United States v. Morgan, 376 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. McDonald, 576 F.2d
holding that a thirtyminute delay in providing curative instructions to a jury for improper conduct did not result in prejudice against the defendant holding court did not abuse discretion in deciding to deal with the jurors note solely by giving a curative instruction when there was no evidence of misconduct or prejudice recognizing that use of curative or limiting instructions is within the district courts discretion holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict holding that the trial judges misconduct at trial did not prejudice the defendant in light of the courts curative instructions