at 694. In the present case, no juror said that there had been premature deliberations. Judge Nevas conducted an individualized examination of the two jurors he thought were relevant and found neither misconduct nor prejudice. In an abundance of caution, Judge Nevas gave reinforcing instructions. He reminded the jurors “not to discuss this case with anyone,” “not to make any determinations until you have heard all the evidence,” and to keep an open mind and await all of the evidence, closing arguments, and instructions. (Tr. of Jury Trial, dated Jan. 19, 2001, at 47-48; Tr. of Jury Trial, dated Jan. 22, 2001, at 14.) “In many instances, the court’s reiteration of its cautionary instructions to the jury is all that is necessary.” Thai, 29 F.3d at 803; see also Abrams, 137 F.3d at 708 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Read, 658 F.2d 1225, 1241-42
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial and instead giving a curative instruction when an improper comment on a defendants silence was not directed to any particular statement or defense offered by the defendant was made during the witnesss explanation of the course of events and did not have the effect of being probative on the issue of guilt or innocence holding that where an objection is sustained and curative instruction given and no further relief such as a mistrial additional curative instruction or striking of the offending comment is requested there is nothing for the appellate court to review 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 holding that the trial judges misconduct at trial did not prejudice the defendant in light of the courts curative instructions holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay evidence and evidence that violated the best evidence rule in deciding a summary judgment motion