a motion for mistrial where detective testified with regard to a third party’s statement that the defendant had delivered cocaine because there was "no evidence the government knowingly presented false or materially misleading evidence” and defendant was not prejudiced.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 986, 117 L.Ed.2d 148 (1992); United States v. Rodriguez, 929 F.2d 1224, 1228 (7th Cir.1991) (noting that no error was committed where a testifying officer inadvertently blurted that the defendant "had previously been arrested for participating in a heroin transaction” because the trial court sustained defense counsel’s objection, struck the testimony, and instructed the jury to disregard any mention of the arrest.); United States v. Hoelscher, 914 F.2d 1527, 1535-36 (8th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1090, 111 S.Ct. 971,
holding that no error was committed where issue of whether the defendant had committed another crime was injected into the trial by the codefendant but was immediately followed by the trial courts instructions to the jury that only the counts listed on the indictment be considered holding that reversible error was committed when the court could not determine that the instruction given by the trial justice was sufficient to remove the taint of the statement and such doubt was to be resolved in favor of the defendant holding that whether the tortious act was committed during the time the employee was on duty and whether the tortious act was committed while the employee was on the employers premises were both factors weighing in favor of finding the activity within the scope of employment holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court