SHOULD THE DISTRICT COURT HAVE GIVEN, SUA SPONTE , A CAUTIONARY INSTRUCTION ?
Defendant argues the district court committed reversible error by not giving, sua sponte , a cautionary instruction regarding testimony that implied Copeland had previously spent time in jail. At trial, the defendant neither moved to strike this testimony nor requested the court to give a curative instruction. [3] From what defendant provides in his brief, however, it does not appear that his standing objection was directed to the unsolicited comments about Copeland’s past jail experience: Mr. Jones [the prosecutor] in his direct has been inquiring as to the reputation on the street, various sources, et cetera. By the time I get my objections out, he’s made the point with the jury. I would ask that I’m on a standing objection to that type of question, and I would ask you to instruct him not to do that,. . . . In any event, defendant did not request the court to provide a cautionary instruction to the jury. The only request was that the court instruct the government’s counsel to frame h
