of real substance that they ask about that I feel I just * * * shouldn’t do alone.” Both sides agreed with this arrangement. The question regarding how long the jury would continue deliberating cannot by any definition be viewed as a question of “real substance” and we hold that the court did not commit reversible error in concluding that the question fell within the scope of the agreement and in handling this question as it did. October 28 question at 8:18 p.m. The reconstructed record contains little information about this communication, and, as a result, Martin asks us to presume prejudice and award him a new trial. We have said, however, that we generally do not “presum[e] prejudice” merely because of a defect in the proceedings. State v. Dame, 670 N.W.2d 261, 266 (Minn.2003) (<HOLDING>). In another case where we addressed “private
holding that the district courts decision to delay jury instructions and deliberations did not warrant a presumption of prejudice holding that a thirtyminute delay in providing curative instructions to a jury for improper conduct did not result in prejudice against the defendant holding that the ninth circuit erred because the state appellate courts conclusion that one incorrect statement in jury instructions did not render the instructions likely to mislead the jury was not unreasonable holding that a jury is presumed to follow the trial courts instructions holding that the district court was required to give a supplemental jury instruction where the original instructions did not address whether there could be a conspiracy comprised of a single defendant and an undercover officer a legal issue that was key to the jurys deliberations