case to warrant a reversal for abuse of discretion. See id. at 148. Here, none of the defendants can show prejudice. First, all of the defendants were charged in Count 1 of the indictment with conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute more than five grams of crack cocaine. This conspiracy was to be shown by the interrelationship of the alleged Short North drug dealers. Thus, a joint trial was appropriate under Rule 8(b). Only if a defendant can show prejudice to his case can we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by not granting severance under Rule 14. The district court included a number of cautionary statements in its instructions to the jury to reduce the possibility of prejudice with respect to a joint trial. Cf. Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 540, 113 S.Ct. 933 (<HOLDING>). For example, while explaining the general
holding that ujnless there is some good reason for finding otherwise  courts proceed on the basis that the jury does comply with cautionary instructions holding that the district courts decision to delay jury instructions and deliberations did not warrant a presumption of prejudice holding that sometimes the risk of prejudice can be allayed by proper cautionary instructions holding that the district courts use of limiting instructions and other measures defused any risk of prejudice recognizing that a delay in proceedings to explore a collateral matter can create a risk of prejudice