279 (3d Cir. 1993)). As with improper statements by the prosecutor, “courts must normally presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted). However, where the potential prejudice is such that there is inherent danger that jurors, in determining the issues, may be unable or unwilling to erase from their minds that which has improperly come to their attention, no instructions or admonitions by the trial judge will suffice. The only appropriate remedy in such a situation is to declare a mistrial. United States v. Carney, 461 F.2d 465, 467-68 (3d Cir. 1972). Here, Sergeant DeGraff raised the improper issue on his own initiative. In response to questioning by the prosecutor, Serge 003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. De Larosa, 450 F.2d 1057 (3d
holding duration of stop was reasonable as it lasted under thirty minutes holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial holding prior testimony was admissible where the witness who first testified during a suppression hearing was murdered after he testified where the defendant was represented by counsel who had extensively crossexamined the witness holding that a curative instruction given thirty minutes after a witness testified as to the defendants prior drug use was sufficient to overcome any prejudice caused by such testimony 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