first of all. You knew the defendant before this incident? A Yes, I do. Q How do you know him? A I have stopped him several times. Augustine’s counsel immediately objected to this statement, and the trial court sustained the objection and struck the comment from the record. Moreover, when the jury was not present the trial court noted the potential prejudice of the statement and offered to give a curative instruction. But, in an effort to not draw more attention to the statement, Augustine’s counsel declined the curative instruction. Augustine’s counsel, however, did not move for a mistrial and the trial court did not grant a mistrial sua sponte. Accordingly, we will only review Augustine’s claim for plain error. See United States v. Taylor, 514 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (10th Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). Under the plain error rule, an appellate
holding that in order to raise prejudicial comments of trial court on appeal defendant must object to comments when made and move for a mistrial holding that defendants who do not object to jury instructions at trial are subject to a plain error standard of review on appeal holding that plain error is the appropriate standard of review when a defendant objects to a prosecutors comments at trial does not move for a mistrial and then on appeal argues that the comments deprived him of a fair trial holding ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to object to prosecutors comments cognizable in postconviction motion since court unable to review on appeal because trial counsel failed to preserve error holding that trial judges admonition of the jury to disregard prosecutors comments on the defendants failure to testify did not cure the error