to follow its instructions.’ ” Blueford v. Arkansas, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2044, 2051, 182 L.Ed.2d 937 (2012) (quoting Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225, 234, 120 S.Ct. 727, 145 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000)); see Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987); United States v. Mann, 701 F.3d 274, 292 (8th Cir.2012); United States v. Rubashkin, 655 F.3d 849, 862 (8th Cir.2011). The danger that a jury would ignore such an instruction and be swayed by Scheetz’s mere presence at the revocation hearing is greatly reduced by two circumstances. First, video of much of the incident, and audio of the entire incident, was recorded. As a result, jurors will be able to view and hear much of what occurred at the revocation hear as contrary to law because .W.3d 147, 153 (2004) (<HOLDING>); State v. Van Dyck, 149 N.H. 604, 827 A.2d
holding a motion is untimely if not filed after the party has knowledge to support disqualification and after the party suffers an adverse ruling holding that in order to determine whether disqualification of plaintiffs attorney is appropriate because of a previous attorneyclient relationship he had with the defendant the court must determine whether confidential information was passed from client to attorney holding under arkansas rule of professional conduct 37 that party seeking disqualification of an attorney must demonstrate that the attorney has personal knowledge which is unobtainable elsewhere holding an arrestee has the right to contact an attorney but not a specific attorney who is unavailable when called holding that because attorney violated several rules of professional conduct the attorney also violated rule 84a