been prejudicial, and must have “affected the outcome of the [trial] court proceedings.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 123 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1993). III. ANALYSIS A. Denial of Mistrial Turbe argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mi resulted in sufficient prejudice to warrant a mistrial, we evaluate: (1) the scope of the comments within the context of the whole trial; (2) the effect of any curative instructions given; and (3) the weight of the evidence against the defendant. See United States v. Gambone, 314 F.3d 163, 179 (3d Cir. 2003). Curative instructions, which the jury is presumed to follow, are generally sufficient to overcome improper statements. See United States v. Hakim, 344 F.3d 324, 329-31 (3d Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>). Here, the prosecutor asked two improper
holding that the trial judges misconduct at trial did not prejudice the defendant in light of the courts curative instructions holding that the district courts decision to delay jury instructions and deliberations did not warrant a presumption of prejudice holding that when an objection is overruled failing to request curative instructions or a mistrial does not result in waiver recognizing that use of curative or limiting instructions is within the district courts discretion holding that a thirtyminute delay in providing curative instructions to a jury for improper conduct did not result in prejudice against the defendant