Jessie’s death pertained only to charges against Jackson and Neeley and not to any of the other defendants. The court also instructed the jury that it could hold a defendant liable for Jessie’s death only if “the defendant you are considering was part of the distribution chain that led to her death.” (R. 796 at 36.) Rule 14 does not require severance in every joint trial in which there is a risk for prejudice; “rather, it leaves the tailoring of the relief to be granted, if any, to the district court’s sound discretion.” Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 539, 113 S.Ct. 933. And as the Supreme Court has held, less drastic measures than severance, “such as limiting instructions, often will suffice to cure any risk of prejudice.” Id.; see also United States v. Warner, 498 F.3d 666, 702 (7th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>). Here, the court’s jury instructions did just
holding defendant who failed to request limiting instruction concerning use of extraneous offenses at the moment the evidence was admitted was not entitled to limiting instructions in jury charge recognizing that use of curative or limiting instructions is within the district courts discretion holding that this court is required to assume that the jury followed the limiting instructions given by the district court holding that the district courts decision to delay jury instructions and deliberations did not warrant a presumption of prejudice holding that the district courts use of limiting instructions and other measures defused any risk of prejudice