Full opinion text
KING, Circuit Judge: This case presents a myriad of issues common to appeals of drug conspiracy convictions. Two less common issues are difficult. One such issue concerns the failure of the district court to _ conduct individual voir dire of the members of the jury following prejudicial midtrial publicity. The other such issue concerns the treatment of a pending James motion, ultimately ruled on at trial, under the Speedy Trial Act. I. BACKGROUND A. FACTS The appellants in this case were charged with participating in one or both of two conspiracies to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. The first of these conspiracies, lasting from late 1987 to mid-1988, allegedly involved eight persons, including appellants Matilde Perez, Manuel Garcia, Honorio Garza, Enrique Avalos, Teodoro Pedraza, and Lorenzo Rodriguez. The second conspiracy lasted from late 1988 through early 1989, and it allegedly involved seven persons, including appellants Perez, Garza, Rogelio Bermea, Baldemar Bermea, and Guadalupe Bermea. 1. The First Conspiracy Jaime Rios Gonzalez, an informant who began working for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and other government agencies in 1988, testified at trial as follows. In 1988, Gonzalez was staying at a ranch owned by Garcia, getting paid about $200 per week for doing “mostly nothing.” (Other testimony at trial indicates that Garcia’s ranch was located just north of Mission, Texas, which is in Hidalgo County near the border with Mexico.) Avalos and Rodriguez also worked at Garcia’s ranch while Gonzalez was there, and Gonzalez identified Avalos as Garcia’s closest associate. At some point, Garcia revealed to Gonzalez that he owned a grain trailer with a secret compartment used for carrying large quantities of marijuana. Garza, a constable of Starr County, Texas (adjacent to Hidalgo County), and Perez came to Garcia’s ranch on one occasion, and Gonzalez overheard Perez tell Garcia not to let his workers “get lost” because he had some work coming up. A little later, Garcia told Gonzalez and other workers that Perez and Garza would soon be providing a “load.” A few days later, Gonzalez and Rodriguez went to a different ranch owned by Carlos Gomez, where they met Garcia, Garza, Avalos, and several other men. That night, which was sometime in July 1988, Gonzalez, Avalos, Rodriguez, Garcia, and the others loaded bundles of marijuana into the secret compartment in Garcia’s grain trailer; Gonzales was told by Avalos and Garcia that the load contained over 1800 pounds. Although Garza was not present during the loading of the marijuana, Garcia told Gonzalez that Garza and Perez had supplied the marijuana. The trailer containing the marijuana remained on the Gomez ranch for at least two weeks before Garcia gave the order to move it. Another of Garcia’s employees, Pepe Villarreal, drove the tractor-trailer, while Gonzalez accompanied Avalos and Rodriguez in another vehicle. Ultimately the tractor-trailer was taken to the home of one “Shorty” Pedraza, which Gonzalez described as being in the country near Giddings, Texas. There Gonzalez, Villarreal, Rodriguez, Avalos, and Teodoro Pedraza unloaded the marijuana and stored it in a shed on Shorty Pedraza’s property. Within the next few days, someone identified as “Ruben” arrived with Garza in a truck equipped with a U-Haul trailer, and the men loaded 600 pounds of marijuana (apparently into the U-Haul). Gonzalez saw Ruben pay Garza an indeterminate amount of money, and Gonzalez then left with Villarreal to return to Garcia’s ranch. A few days later, Gonzales saw Perez and Garza come to Garcia’s ranch and deliver four plastic sacks containing money to one of Garcia’s henchmen. Garcia paid Gonzalez $700 for his work. Gonzalez stayed with Garcia through August of 1988. In September of 1988 he began working for the DEA. Gonzalez’s testimony was corroborated in part by Carlos Gomez, who testified at trial as a government witness. Gomez testified that Garcia used Gomez’s ranch as a site for loading marijuana into the secret compartment of Garcia’s trailer ten or twelve times between January and August 1988. Gomez also verified that Perez brought marijuana to the ranch on two or three occasions and that Gonzalez had been at the ranch to load marijuana with Garcia’s men on one occasion. 2. The Second Conspiracy Gonzalez testified that, near the end of his association with Garcia, Garcia became upset with his cousins, the brothers Guadalupe, Baldemar, and Rogelio Bermea. Garcia told Gonzalez that the Bermeas had stolen his secret compartment design and built their own trailer with a secret compartment and that he was afraid that the Bermeas would get caught by law enforcement officers and thus ruin the usefulness of his design. Gonzalez was recruited to be a driver for the Bermeas by Guadalupe and Baldemar Bermea in October of 1988. He went to a ranch, apparently owned by Guadalupe and Baldemar Bermea, in late October or early November 1988. Some time later the Ber-meas’ tractor-trailer arrived, and marijuana was brought to the ranch in a van by Perez and an unknown man. Perez told Gonzalez that he and Garza had decided to start working with the Bermeas because they could get a “cheaper rate” with the Bermeas than they could with Garcia. While Rogelio, Guadalupe, and Baldemar Bermea kept a lookout, Gonzalez and others loaded marijuana into the secret compartment in the Bermeas’ trailer, which Gonzalez described as “identical” to Garcia’s compartment. The next day, Gonzalez left the ranch driving the tractor-trailer. He contacted the DEA agents with whom he had been working, and the agents arrested Rogelio Bermea, who was following Gonzalez in a separate vehicle, along the way. Gonzalez continued with the shipment and met Baldemar Bermea a little later, but Baldemar Bermea apparently abandoned Gonzalez when Texas state highway troopers began to follow Gonzalez. Eventually Gonzalez was “arrested” by the DEA and the Hays County Sheriffs Department. He helped the law enforcement officers unload the marijuana, which turned out to weigh a little over 1300 pounds. After Gonzalez turned the Bermeas’ tractor-trailer over to the DEA, he returned to the Bermeas’ ranch and told them that he had left the tractor-trailer at a certain truck stop with the key under the floor mat. Guadalupe Bermea told him that the tractor-trailer was nowhere to be found and then paid him $600 and told him to “get lost for a while.” Later, Baldemar Bermea told Gonzalez that Garza and his brother had put a price on his head. Another government witness was Juan Teodosa Solis, who testified to the following events. Solis was recruited by Rogelio Ber-mea to drive a second tractor-trailer with a secret compartment in January 1989. Solis drove three shipments of marijuana for the Bermeas successfully, and Perez accompanied him on each of these trips. On the second trip, Solis overheard Perez talking to someone on the phone that he referred to as “Honorio.” Additionally, while Solis was working for the Bermeas, he was told by Guadalupe Bermea that Rogelio and Balde-mar Bermea were making plans with “Hono-rio” to transport another load of marijuana. On a fourth trip, in early March 1989, Solis was arrested, and it appears that he pleaded guilty to federal drug charges and was sentenced to seventy months in prison. A DEA agent testified at trial that Solis was transporting about 1100 pounds of marijuana at the time he was arrested. B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The final superseding indictment against the appellants contained four counts. The first count charged that from December 1987 through July 1988, Perez, Garcia, Garza, Avalos, Pedraza, Rodriguez, and two others not before this court conspired to possess more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(B). The second count charged that from November 1988 through May 1989, Perez, Garza, Rogelio Bermea, Baldemar Bermea, Guadalupe Bermea, and two others not before this court conspired to possess more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with the intent to distribute, also in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(B). The third count charged Perez, Rogelio Bermea, Baldemar Bermea, Guadalupe Bermea, and two others not before this court with possession of between 100 and 1000 kilograms of marijuana with the intent to distribute on or about November 16, 1988, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The final count charged Perez, Rogelio Bermea, Baldemar Bermea, and Guadalupe Bermea with possession of between 100 and 1000 kilograms of marijuana with the intent to distribute on or about March 3, 1989, also in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. After a two-week trial, the jury returned its verdicts. Perez was found guilty on counts one, two, and three and was found not guilty on count four. Garza was found guilty on counts one and two. Garcia, Avalos, Pe-draza, and Rodriguez were found guilty on count one. Rogelio and Guadalupe Bermea were found guilty on counts two, three, and four. Baldemar Bermea was found guilty on count two and was found not guilty on counts three and four. The appellants were sentenced under the sentencing guidelines to terms of imprisonment as follows. Perez, Garcia, Garza, and Rogelio Bermea were sentenced to 151 months. Guadalupe Bermea was sentenced to 135 months. Avalos was sentenced to 108 months. Baldemar Bermea was sentenced to 100 months. Pedraza was sentenced to 97 months, and Rodriguez was sentenced to 92 months. An additional term of four years supervised release was imposed on each appellant as well. These appeals followed. II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE Several of the appellants have raised claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdicts. The scope of our review of the sufficiency of the evidence after conviction by a jury is narrow. We must affirm if a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 341 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1310, 127 L.Ed.2d 660 (1994). We must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, including all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. United States v. Pigrum, 922 F.2d 249, 253 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 936, 111 S.Ct. 2064, 114 L.Ed.2d 468 (1991). The evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt, and the jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence. Id. at 254. A. Offense Elements and Paid Informants The sufficiency challenges raised in this appeal appear to be limited to the conspiracy convictions. In order to prove that a defendant committed the crime of conspiracy to possess narcotics with intent to distribute, the government must prove that (1) a conspiracy to possess narcotics with intent to distribute existed, (2) the defendant knew of the conspiracy, and (3) the defendant voluntarily participated in the conspiracy. United States v. Hernandez-Palacios, 838 F.2d 1346, 1348 (5th Cir.1988); see United States v. Cardenas, 9 F.3d 1139, 1157 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2150, 128 L.Ed.2d 876 (1994). No proof of an overt act is required. Hernandez-Palacios, 838 F.2d at 1348; Cacace v. United States, 590 F.2d 1339, 1340 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Palacios, 556 F.2d 1359, 1364 n. 9 (5th Cir.1977). But see United States v. Shabani, 993 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir.1993) (holding that the elements of a drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 do include an overt act requirement), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1047, 127 L.Ed.2d 370 (1994). Among the factors that may be considered by the factfinder in determining whether a defendant is guilty of committing a drug conspiracy crime are “concert of action,” presence among or association with drug conspirators, and “[ejvasive and erratic behavior.” Cardenas, 9 F.3d at 1157. Of course, mere presence or association alone cannot suffice to establish that a person has voluntarily joined a conspiracy. United States v. Magee, 821 F.2d 234, 239 (5th Cir.1987). The government’s evidence at trial consisted largely of the testimony of Jaime Gonzalez, who was a paid informant, Carlos Gomez, who had reached an agreement to cooperate with the government in exchange for dismissal of an indictment against his wife and who was paid for his expenses in testifying, and Juan Solis, who testified that he had been offered a reward if he cooperated in future civil forfeiture proceedings brought by the government. Although the credibility of witnesses who receive consideration in exchange for their cooperation or testimony may suffer from that fact, we have concluded that “it is up to the jury to evaluate the credibility of a compensated witness.” United States v. Cervantes-Pacheco, 826 F.2d 310, 315 (5th Cir.1987) (en banc) (overruling Williamson v. United States, 311 F.2d 441 (5th Cir.1962), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 950, 85 S.Ct. 1803, 14 L.Ed.2d 724 (1965)), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1026, 108 S.Ct. 749, 98 L.Ed.2d 762 (1988). We have cautioned that procedural safeguards should be observed when paid informant testimony is used by the government. The government must not use or encourage the use of perjured testimo ny; the government must completely and timely disclose the fee arrangement to the accused in accordance with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); the accused must be given an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the informant and government agents about any agreement to compensate the witness; and the trial court should give a special jury instruction pointing out the suspect credibility of paid witnesses. Cervantes-Pacheco, 826 F.2d at 315-16. We note that the district court did give such a cautionary jury instruction, and that no defendant complains that he was not allowed to conduct adequate cross-examination regarding any agreements between the government and its witnesses. With these rules in mind, we evaluate the appellants’ insufficiency claims. B. Manuel Gaecia Garcia’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conspiracy conviction is without merit. His argument amounts to little more than an attack on the credibility of Gonzalez and Gomez because these government witnesses received consideration from the government in exchange for their cooperation and testimony. We have repeatedly stated that the jury is the final arbiter of the credibility of witnesses. United States v. Restrepo, 994 F.2d 173, 182 (5th Cir.1993). We have held that a guilty verdict may be sustained if supported only by the uncorroborated testimony of a coconspirator, even if the witness is interested due to a plea bargain or promise of leniency, unless the testimony is incredible or insubstantial on its face. United States v. Gadison, 8 F.3d 186, 190 (5th Cir.1993); United States v. Hernandez, 962 F.2d 1152, 1157 (5th Cir.1992). Testimony is incredible as a matter of law only if it relates to facts that the witness could not possibly have observed or to events which could not have occurred under the laws of nature. Gadison, 8 F.3d at 190; United States v. Hoskins, 628 F.2d 295, 297 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 987, 101 S.Ct. 406, 66 L.Ed.2d 249 (1980). The testimony of Gomez and Gonzalez was not incredible or insubstantial on its face. Indeed, Gomez’s testimony tended to corroborate Gonzalez’s testimony regarding the loading of Garcia’s grain trailer at Gomez’s ranch in July 1988. A reasonable jury could have credited their testimony, which included Garcia as an important member of the first conspiracy. We therefore reject Garcia’s claim. C. HONORIO Gaeza Garza was convicted of both conspiracies alleged in the indictment. The evidence adduced against him at trial consisted of the following. With respect to the first conspiracy, Gonzalez testified that Garcia told him and Garcia’s other workers that “Matilde and Honorio” were going to bring them “a load” a few days before the load of marijuana actually arrived at Gomez’s ranch. Garza was present at Gomez’s ranch during the day before the loading operation commenced, but Gonzalez did not testify that Garza was present during the loading. Gonzalez also testified that Garcia told him that Garza and Perez were the sources of the marijuana. Garza was identified as accompanying Ruben to Shorty Pedraza’s home in Giddings, where Ruben picked up 600 pounds of marijuana and paid Garza an indeterminate amount of money from a briefcase. Garza points out that Gonzalez’s testimony is somewhat unclear regarding this transaction; although Gonzalez testified that the transaction occurred in Giddings, the prosecutor’s questions strangely begin to refer to a “man in New Braunfels[, Texas]” in the middle of Gonzalez’s testimony. The prosecutor may have been referring to the buyer that Gonzalez knew only as “Ruben,” but the record does not explicitly draw a connection between the two references. With respect to the second conspiracy, Gonzalez testified as follows. Soon after Gonzalez went to work for the Bermeas, Perez and an unknown man delivered a van loaded with marijuana to Guadalupe and Baldemar Bermea’s ranch. Gonzalez talked with Perez after the marijuana was unloaded, and Perez told Gonzalez that he and his “compadre” Honorio had decided to start using the Bermeas because they had a cheaper rate. After Gonzalez turned the Bermeas’ trailer over to law enforcement officers, Baldemar Bermea told him that “Los Nen-cos,” a nickname for Garza and his brother, had put a price on Gonzalez’s head. Witness Solis also connected Garza to the second conspiracy in his testimony. Solis testified that he overheard Perez talking on a phone to “Honorio” during two of Solis’s trips as a driver for the Bermeas. Perez told Solis that he was calling people in “the Valley” to assure them that everything was going smoothly. On another occasion Solis was told by Guadalupe Bermea that Rogelio and Baldemar Bermea were making plans with Garza for another run. The- evidence was clearly sufficient to support a finding that Garza was guilty as to the first conspiracy; Gonzalez’s testimony specifically tied Garza to the drug transaction conducted in Giddings. Although the evidence tying Garza to the second conspiracy is significantly weaker, we have held that “[o]nly slight evidence is needed to connect an individual to an illegal conspiracy once the United States has produced evidence of that conspiracy.” United States v. Vaquero, 997 F.2d 78, 82 (5th Cir.) (citing United States v. Duncan, 919 F.2d 981, 991 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 926, 111 S.Ct. 2036, 114 L.Ed.2d 121 (1991)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 614, 126 L.Ed.2d 578 (1993). The United States more than sufficiently proved the existence of the second conspiracy; the evidence connecting Garza to that conspiracy, although not overwhelming, sufficiently supports the inference that he was involved in that conspiracy in a somewhat removed position of authority. D. EnRique Avalos Avalos challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for participation in the first conspiracy. His protests that the evidence shows “mere presence” at the scene of conspiratorial activity, however, are without merit. Gonzalez testified not only that Avalos was often present at Garcia’s ranch, but also that Avalos was Garcia’s closest associate. Additionally, Avalos was identified by Gonzalez as one of the men who helped load the marijuana into the secret compartment in Garcia’s grain trailer at Gomez’s ranch in July of 1988 and who helped unload the marijuana at Shorty Pe-draza’s home. Like his co-appellants, Avalos makes much of the fact that the government’s main witnesses were paid or otherwise compensated for their testimony and cooperation, but this fact was for the jury to consider in weighing the credibility of the witnesses. We will not second-guess the jury’s determination. E.TeodoRO Pedraza Although the government’s evidence against Teodoro Pedraza was not as extensive as its evidence against some of his codefendants, we conclude that Pedraza’s sufficiency challenge is also without merit. Gonzalez identified Pedraza as one of the men who converged at Shorty Pedraza’s home and helped unload the marijuana from Garcia’s trailer. Gonzalez also testified that Pedraza was part owner of the truck used during the first conspiracy and that Pedraza and Garcia argued on one occasion when Pedraza wanted Garcia to finish paying Pedraza for the truck. Thus, Gonzalez’s testimony, if believed, established more than Pedraza’s mere presence at the scene of conspiratorial activity. Pedraza’s complaint that the jury could not have rationally convicted him and at the same'time acquitted Shorty Pedraza is without merit. See United States v. Zuniga-Salinas, 952 F.2d 876, 877 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc) (holding that a verdict convicting one alleged conspirator can stand even if the jury acquits the sole alleged eoconspirator). Because a rational jury could have found that Pedraza actively participated in the first conspiracy, we conclude that the evidence supporting his conviction was sufficient. F.Lorenzo Rodriguez Rodriguez’s argument that the evidence implicating him in the first conspiracy was insufficient to support his conviction is without merit. Gonzalez’s testimony established Rodriguez’s frequent presence at Garcia’s ranch before the July 1988 marijuana shipment as well as Rodriguez’s participation in both the loading of marijuana into Garcia’s trailer at Gomez’s ranch and the unloading of the marijuana at Shorty Pedraza’s home near Giddings. Gomez also testified to Rodriguez’s presence at his ranch when the July 1988 shipment was loaded into Garcia’s trailer. The fact that Gonzalez and Gomez generally referred to Rodriguez as “Lencho,” the name listed in the indictment as an “a/k/a” for Rodriguez, does not reduce the evidentiary weight of their testimony or in-court identifications of Rodriguez, as Rodriguez seems to argue. G.Rogelio Bermea Rogelio Bermea contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to distinguish him from his relatives who were also on trial. We disagree. According to Gonzalez, Rogelio Bermea was present at the Bermea ranch when the marijuana was loaded into the truck that Gonzalez was to drive, and Rogelio Bermea also met Gonzalez at a convenience store during the shipment. Witness Solis also affirmatively identified Rogelio Bermea as the person who recruited him to drive loads of marijuana for the Bermeas and opined that Rogelio Bermea was the “boss man” of the conspiracy. This evidence, taken as a whole, was sufficient to support Rogelio Bermea’s conspiracy conviction. H.Baldemar Bermea Baldemar Bermea’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge, like that of the other appellants, is without merit. He was convicted only for his membership in the second conspiracy alleged in the indictment. Gonzalez connected Baldemar Bermea to the conspiracy by testifying that he was recruited by Guadalupe and Baldemar Bermea, that Baldemar Bermea accompanied him part of the way during the shipment that he drove and tried to warn him that Texas highway patrol officers were following him, and that Baldemar Bermea was the person who warned him that a price had been put on his head. Although Gonzalez’s in-court identification of Baldemar Bermea was not recognized by the district court and is thus not clear to this court on appeal, Solis did make a clear in-court identification of Baldemar Bermea. Solis’s testimony also established Baldemar Bermea’s involvement in the second conspiracy. According to Solis, Baldemar Bermea went with him to pick up the truck that Solis used to transport marijuana and occasionally contacted him when there was a load of marijuana ready to be shipped. Baldemar Bermea also assured Solis that if he were arrested, the Bermeas would help him and his family financially. The evidence against Baldemar Bermea was sufficient to support his conviction. III. MIDTRIAL PUBLICHY Garcia and Garza contend that they are entitled to reversal of their convictions because they were unfairly prejudiced by extensive publicity that occurred during the trial. A. Facts Most of the publicity complained of by Garcia and Garza consisted of articles published in a local newspaper, the McAllen Monitor. The trial lasted from January 15-29, 1992. On Saturday, January 18, the Monitor ran a story entitled “Official’s drug trial underway,” detailing Gonzalez’s testimony and describing the ease as one “involving former Starr County Constable Honorio Garza and 11 other defendants.” The next article cited by Garza and Garcia was entitled “Witness details drug ring operation” and summarized Gomez’s testimony. The next article was entitled “Testimony implicates constable,” and it detailed the testimony of Solis, including his belief that Perez contacted Garza by telephone during marijuana shipments. On January 23, the Monitor ran an article entitled ‘Witness says he was offered bribe not to testify.” The article briefly described testimony by Solis under cross-examination by Garza’s attorney that Solis’s brother had come to visit Solis in Starr County jail in September of 1991 and told Solis that he was sent by Garza to offer him money not to testify. The next article was entitled “Jurors allowed to see evidence over objections.” The article stated that income tax records, weapons, cash, and jewelry had been seized in raids on the homes of some of the defendants and that the trial judge had admitted some of the articles into evidence. Relying in part on a statement by the lead prosecutor, the article further stated that one of the defendants, Eleazar Bermea, had pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony and stated in the plea agreement that “he knew there was a marijuana-trafficking conspiracy, that he allowed his home to be used for telephone conversations between conspirators, and that he did not alert authorities about criminal acts.” Two other articles complained of describe the final day of testimony in the case and mention in passing that jury deliberations had begun. The other source of the publicity complained of by Garcia and Garza was an episode of the nationally televised news program Street Stones that aired the evening of January 23, 1992, in the midst of the trial. Garza has provided a transcript of that episode to this court in his record excerpts. A segment of that episode focused on the marijuana smuggling trade in the Rio Grande Valley, referring specifically to Starr County as a “smuggler’s paradise” and including footage of an unidentified informant who asserted that forty percent of Starr County’s law enforcement personnel were involved in the drug trade. Apparently photographs of Garza were included in the segment, and the program reported that Garza had been indicted and that his trial was pending. The appellants also claim that Garza was shown on the program in handcuffs, although this cannot be verified from the transcript. The district judge made some efforts to discourage the jurors from viewing any media accounts bearing on the case. In the preliminary instructions to the jury before trial, the judge gave the following admonition to the jury: “Don’t read or listen to anything about this case.” Before adjourning for lunch on January 23, the judge asked the jury as a whole if any jurors had “read or seen or listened to anything about th[e] case,” and no juror responded. At the end of the day on January 23, the judge reminded the jurors, “Don’t forget my instructions about newspapers, TV, radio or discussing the case with anybody.” The judge did not, however, accede to the request for individual voir dire made by Garza’s defense counsel. The Street Stories episode was brought to the judge’s attention the next morning before trial resumed, and at the end of the day the judge gave the following admonition: I’ve also given you some instructions about not to read anything about the case, not to hear anything about the case, not to watch anything about the ease, not to do any investigation on your own about a case — about the case and not to discuss it with anybody. If through some inadvertence you have seen something about the ease or you have read something about it but you — you’re clearly not to do that in any way. You cannot consider anything that is not evidence, that has not been presented here in the Courtroom, ladies and gentlemen. And you’re under oath to follow the instructions I give you with regard to that. After some additional prompting by Garza’s defense counsel, the judge asked, “None of you have seen or heard anything about this particular case or any defendant in this case recently, have you?” The record reflects that there was no audible response to the judge’s question, and he dismissed the jury for the day. Before the jury was brought into the courtroom on January 27, Garcia’s attorney raised the Monitor article regarding the property seized during the government raids and the statement given by Eleazar Bermea in conjunction with his guilty plea, and Garza’s attorney moved for a mistrial, which the court denied. When the jury was brought in that morning, the judge asked, “Ladies and gentlemen, is there anybody who has seen, read or heard anything about this case since you all were here on Friday?” After getting no audible response, the judge reminded the jury not to forget the instructions he had given, and the trial proceeded. It appears that the judge did not give any final instructions related to the publicity except for general instructions that the jury should restrict its deliberations to the evidence admitted in the case. Garza argues that the district court should have granted a mistrial because of prejudice stemming from the midtrial publicity, that the district court committed reversible error in failing to conduct midtrial voir dire regarding the publicity, and that the district court committed reversible error for failing to sequester the jury sua sponte. Garcia generally presses the same points. B. Analysis The management of midtrial publicity is entrusted to the broad discretion of the district court; we will reverse only if we find an abuse of discretion. United States v. Aragon, 962 F.2d 439, 443 (5th Cir.1992); United States v. Harrelson, 754 F.2d 1153, 1163 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 908, 106 S.Ct. 277, 88 L.Ed.2d 241, and cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1034, 106 S.Ct. 599, 88 L.Ed.2d 578 (1985). 1. Refusal to Conduct Individual Voir Dire We consider first the argument that the district judge committed reversible error by failing to voir dire the jurors individually after the instances of midtrial publicity were brought to the court’s attention. There is a paucity of Supreme Court authority on the subject of midtrial publicity. The more celebrated cases dealing with the adverse effects of publicity, e.g., Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966), have involved convictions obtained after massive pretrial publicity and frequently a pervasive media presence during the trial as well. The instant case is not one like Sheppard and its kind, as it does not involve a “conviction obtained in a trial atmosphere that had been utterly corrupted by press coverage.” Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 798, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 7035, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). In Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250 (1959) (per curiam), the Court exercised its supervisory power over the enforcement of the criminal law in the federal courts and reversed a conviction because the jurors had been exposed to two newspaper accounts of the defendant’s criminal record. The district judge in Marshall conducted individual voir dire of the jurors in his chambers and concluded that the defendant would not be prejudiced by the publicity because even the jurors who had read one or both of the prejudicial articles said that they could be impartial in deciding the case. Id. at 312, 79 S.Ct. at 1172-73. The Court, although recognizing the district judge’s broad discretion in ruling on the possibility of prejudice from the publicity, reversed the conviction and granted a new trial. Id. at 312-13, 79 S.Ct. at 1172-73. Although the Supreme Court has not set down many guidelines for resolving the problem of midtrial publicity, we have considered the issue several times in recent years. Our touchstone is United States v. Aragon, 962 F.2d at 443-47, in which we undertook a thorough review of our cases regarding midtrial publicity. The test, reduced to its most basic elements, is twofold: voir dire is required if there are serious questions of possible prejudice, considering (1) whether the publicity is innately prejudicial, and if so (2) the probability that the publicity in fact reached the jury. Id. at 443-44. In determining whether publicized material is innately prejudicial, we consider factors such as the content of the material, the timing of the publicity in relation to critical stages of the trial, and the possible effects of the material on legal defenses. Id. at 444. The second prong is governed by commonsense considerations such as the prominence of the media coverage and the nature, number, and regularity of the district court’s warnings against viewing the coverage. Id. The test is necessarily highly fact-specific. Id. (citing Marshall, 360 U.S. at 312, 79 S.Ct. at 1172-73). We have held district courts to a stricter standard in mid-trial publicity cases as compared to pretrial publicity eases because information reported during the trial is more likely to remain in the mind of a juror exposed to it. Id. at 441 n. 3 (citing United States v. Williams, 568 F.2d 464, 468 (5th Cir.1978)). a. Nature of the Publicity We first consider whether the publicized material complained of by the appellants was innately prejudicial. In Aragon, we reaffirmed the rule that publicity revealing to jurors a defendant’s prior criminal record is inherently prejudicial. Id. (citing Williams, 568 F.2d at 469). We also concluded that a media account was innately prejudicial in the leading case of United States v. Herring, 568 F.2d 1099 (5th Cir.1978). In that case, Herring was on trial for various drug offenses. Id. at 1100 n. 3. Herring was a road manager for noted rock musician Gregg Allman, and Allman testified at trial against Herring in exchange for a grant of immunity. Id. at 1100. The local daily newspaper carried a front-page story, complete with photograph, entitled “ALL-MAN UNDER HEAVY GUARD” and subtitled “Death Threats Reported.” Id. at 1102. We concluded that this material, released on the very day the defendant took the stand, was innately prejudicial and demanded full voir dire of the jurors. Id. at 1105. Finally, in United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 1072, 1091-92 (5th Cir.), modified, 828 F.2d 1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 896, 108 S.Ct. 228, 98 L.Ed.2d 187 and cert. denied, 484 U.S. 913, 108 S.Ct. 259, 98 L.Ed.2d 216, and cert. denied, 484 U.S. 987, 108 S.Ct. 506, 98 L.Ed.2d 504 (1987), we considered midtrial publicity stemming from a government witness’s testimony that certain defendants accused of drug offenses were involved in drug dealing even during the trial. This testimony led the trial judge to revoke bail, leading to numerous media accounts of the event, including front page coverage complete with a color photograph of the defendants being led away from the courthouse in chains. Id. at 1091. We concluded that the nature of the material “definitely [went] beyond the record and raise[d] serious questions of possible prejudice.” Id. at 1092. Most of the publicity that occurred in the instant case was not exceptionally prejudicial; as the district court noted, most of the newspaper accounts were limited to descriptions of the trial proceedings witnessed by the jurors themselves. See United States v. Martinez-Moncivais, 14 F.3d 1030, 1037 (5th Cir.1994) (finding that publicity carried no potential for prejudice because “the news media had merely publicized an issue that the jurors had already been informed of by the judge himself’), petition for cert. filed, 62 U.S.L.W. 3844 (U.S. June 3, 1994) (No. 93-1933). Two specific instances of midtrial publicity, however, do cause us special concern. First, the newspaper account of Eleazar Bermea’s plea agreement, and in particular its detailed recitation of Bermea’s admissions regarding the existence and operations of a marijuana trafficking conspiracy, went well beyond what the district judge told the jurors: “Ladies and gentlemen, the case of Mr. Eleazar Bermea has been disposed of, and it will not be necessary for you to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty with regards to Mr. Bermea.” We have made it abundantly clear that evidence about a coconspir-ator’s conviction is not admissible as substantive proof of the guilt of a defendant. United States v. Leach, 918 F.2d 464, 467 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1207, 111 S.Ct. 2802, 115 L.Ed.2d 976 (1991); see also United States v. Griffin, 778 F.2d 707, 710 (11th Cir.1985) (“Due to the extreme and unfair prejudice suffered by defendants in similar situations, courts and prosecutors generally are forbidden from mentioning that a code-fendant has either pled guilty or been convicted.”). Indeed, we held in the Leach case that the government’s introduction of evidence during Leach’s trial that Leach’s alleged eoconspirator had pleaded guilty rose to the level of plain error and warranted reversal of one of Leach’s convictions despite his failure to object. Leach, 918 F.2d at 468. Thus, the newspaper coverage of Eleazar Bermea’s guilty plea and the details of his plea agreement was plainly prejudicial to the remaining defendants. The same article also mentioned certain items seized during a search of Garcia’s house, including $110,000 in cash, twenty weapons, and jewelry, that the court had excluded from evidence. Second, the episode of Street Stories chronicled public corruption in Starr County and specifically mentioned Garza in conjunction with other prominent Starr County residents who had pleaded guilty or already gone to prison for drug offenses. Although no explicit connection was made between these drug dealers, who included a justice of the peace and a former county clerk, and Garza, Garza’s name, photograph, and indicted status were included or described in thfe broadcast in close proximity to the persons who had pleaded guilty or already gone to prison. We conclude that these two instances of publicity contained material that was innately prejudicial. See Aragon, 962 F.2d at 445 (suggesting that publicity is innately prejudicial if its substance “may be taken as probative of the appellants’ guilt”). b. Probability of Jury Contamination Our analysis must next focus on the likelihood that the prejudicial accounts reached the jury. The most important factors, in our view, are the prominence of the media coverage itself and the measures taken by the district court to minimize the probability of jury exposure. Lesser factors that we have recognized as bearing on the inquiry include whether the jury returned mixed verdicts, which can indicate fair-minded consideration of the evidence, the length of the trial, and the amount of detail provided to the district court regarding the extent and content of the publicity. United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 764-65 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 93, — L.Ed.2d - (1994). First, we consider the nature of the publicity itself. All the articles, including the one containing the account of Eleazar Bermea’s guilty plea, appeared prominently in what is apparently a leading daily newspaper in the city where the trial was held. As we have already noted, however, the great bulk of the publicity was not particularly prejudicial, and the portion of the article describing Eleazar Bermea’s guilty plea consisted of only three short paragraphs in the middle of a longer article. See United States v. Manzella, 782 F.2d 533, 541 (5th Cir.) (rejecting a claim based on midtrial publicity in part because the media discussion of a defendant’s prior conviction “occupied but one short paragraph in a lengthy article”), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1123, 106 S.Ct. 1991, 90 L.Ed.2d 672, and cert. denied, 479 U.S. 961, 107 S.Ct. 457, 93 L.Ed.2d 403 (1986). The television program, of course, aired nationally and could have been seen by any of the jurors. On balance, it appears that the prejudicial television broadcast was widely and freely disseminated in a manner likely to reach some jurors, while the prejudicial newspaper story was probably not as likely to come to their attention. Cf. Aragon, 962 F.2d at 441-42 (reversing a conviction based on a single article printed conspicuously on the front page of the most widely circulated local daily newspaper); Williams, 809 F.2d at 1091-92 (reversing a conviction based on publicity including one front-page newspaper story with photograph and reports on “local television and radio news programs”). The other critical factor in weighing the probability that the jury was exposed to the prejudicial publicity is the procedure adopted by the district judge to shield the jury from the publicity. The cases place great emphasis on the particular instructions given to the jury by the trial judge to minimize or eliminate the danger of jury contamination by prejudicial publicity. For instance, we declined to reverse convictions due to midtrial publicity in Faulkner, 17 F.3d at 764, in part because the judge gave preliminary jury instructions regarding the need to avoid press reports which were “unusually lengthy and emphatic,” rather than “boilerplate or casual recitations of standard jury instructions.” Faulkner involved a television newscast on the first day of trial that erroneously reported that the defendants’ first trial had ended in a mistrial caused by jury tampering. Id. at 763. We noted with favor the judge’s decision to give the jurors an immediate explanation of the real reason for the prior mistrial, which was a hung jury, directly rebutting the allegedly prejudicial statement in the press report. Id. at 764. Another approach we have favored is the giving of a blanket instruction to the jury not to view or listen to any radio or television news broadcasts or to read any newspapers except as provided by the court, and then to provide newspapers with any relevant portions redacted from them. Aragon, 962 F.2d at 445; Harrelson, 754 F.2d at 1163. The procedures followed by the district judge in the instant case, however, do not precisely match those used in any of the precedents cited above. The judge did instruct the jury at the outset and occasionally throughout the trial not to read or listen to any media accounts of the case, an instruction we have favored over the weaker instruction simply to pay no attention to such accounts. Herring, 568 F.2d at 1105. The frequency of the jury admonitions is also factor we have considered in deciding whether an abuse of discretion has occurred. Faulkner, 17 F.3d at 765. In Aragon, we reversed appellants’ convictions due to mid-trial publicity, in part because “a selective prohibition against reading about the case, done rather quickly and casually by the court, did not obviate the court’s need for inquiry.” Aragon, 962 F.2d at 445 (emphasis added). In the instant case, the district judge apparently did not repeat his cautionary instructions each day of the trial, despite the fact that newspaper accounts of the trial appeared several times while the trial was in progress. We observe, however, that the judge did repeat his instructions on a few occasions; significantly, he reminded the jury not to forget his “instructions about newspapers, TV, radio, or discussing the case with anybody” just before dismissing the jury the very day the prejudicial television program aired. We presume that a jury heeds its instructions. United States v. De La Rosa, 911 F.2d 985, 992 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 959, 111 S.Ct. 2275, 114 L.Ed.2d 726 (1991). Additionally, even though the district judge did not conduct individual voir dire regarding the publicity, he asked the jury as a whole three times if anyone had been exposed to media coverage of the case. Two of those inquiries were made immediately following the two instances of innately prejudicial publicity that we have already identified, so any contamination would have been fresh in the minds of any jurors that had been exposed to those accounts. The fact that none of the jurors responded to the judge’s direct questions strongly suggests that no contamination in fact occurred. The other factors recognized in the cases have little bearing on this case. Two defendants were wholly exonerated, and Perez and Baldemar Bermea were acquitted on one and two counts of marijuana possession, respectively. Although these mixed verdicts arguably weigh against finding an abuse of discretion in the judge’s refusal to conduct individual voir dire, Faulkner, 17 F.3d at 764-65, any force this factor might ordinarily carry is substantially diminished in the instant case by the fact that Garcia and Garza, the only defendants to complain about the midtrial publicity, were not acquitted of any charges. The two-week length of the instant trial does not militate strongly for or against reversal, falling as it does between the extremes of the Aragon case, in which the problematic publicity occurred in the middle of a two-day trial, and the Faulkner case, in which the prejudicial broadcast occurred on the first day of a seven-week trial. This is a close case, and the more prudent course would have been for the district judge to conduct the requested voir dire and perhaps to provide the jurors with newspapers to read each day with all references to the case expurgated from them. Considering all of the circumstances, however, we conclude that the likelihood of actual jury exposure to the innately prejudicial publicity was so low as to require the conclusion that no abuse of discretion occurred. The most significant fact distinguishing this case from Aragon and the other cases finding reversible error is that the district judge did conduct a sort of collective voir dire after both instances of innately prejudicial publicity. The negative response he received on each occasion strongly indicates that jury exposure did not occur in this case and supports his discretionary decision that individual voir dire was unnecessary. We have found nothing in our cases to support a rule that midtrial publicity requires individual voir dire even after the district judge has made a collective inquiry to the jury and received no positive response. Indeed, in United States v. Capo, 595 F.2d 1086, 1092-93 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1012, 100 S.Ct. 660, 62 L.Ed.2d 641 (1980), we rejected a midtrial publicity claim, basing our decision in part on a collective voir dire of the jury by the court after the publicity was brought to the court’s attention. As Manzella illustrates, there is no reason to presume, as Garcia and Garza implicitly would have us do, that jurors would conceal their exposure to media coverage from a direct inquiry by the trial judge. Manzella, 782 F.2d at 541-42 (approving the trial judge’s decision to perform collective voir dire first and then to voir dire individually only the three jurors who indicated they had seen the publicity). Because the collective voir dire indicated that no jury contamination occurred, and because independent factors in this ease exist that minimize the likelihood of contamination such as the district judge’s instructions to the jury and the obscurity of the prejudicial newspaper account, the district court acted within its discretion in not performing a more searching examination of the jurors individually. See United States v. Hyde, 448 F.2d 815, 848 n. 38 (5th Cir.1971) (“[Wjhen there has been publicity that would possibly prejudice the defendant’s case if it reached the jurors, the court should first ask the jurors what information they have received. Then it should ask about the prejudicial effect and it should make an independent determination whether the juror’s impartiality was destroyed.”), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1058, 92 S.Ct. 736, 30 L.Ed.2d 745 (1972); see also United States v. Davis, 583 F.2d 190, 196-98 (5th Cir.1978) (finding an abuse of discretion because the trial judge was aware that all the jurors had been exposed to media coverage and still performed only cursory collective voir dire asking whether any panel member felt that his impartiality had been impaired). The precautions taken by the district court were sufficient to dispel any serious questions about possible prejudice. 2. Sequestration and Mistrial Garza also contends that the district court committed reversible error by denying his motion for a mistrial due to the midtrial publicity and by failing to order sequestration of the jury sua sponte. This court will reverse a district court’s refusal to grant a mistrial only if an abuse of discretion has occurred. United States v. Limones, 8 F.3d 1004, 1007 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1543, 128 L.Ed.2d 194, and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1562, 128 L.Ed.2d 209 (1994). We have already determined that the district court’s decision not to conduct individual voir dire in connection with the midtrial publicity was not an abuse of discretion. By the same token, the court’s decision not to declare a mistrial based on the identical publicity was not an abuse of discretion. Garza argues that the district court should have sua sponte ordered sequestration of the jury. His failure to request this measure in the district court requires him to show that the court’s failure constituted plain error. Fed.R.CRIM.P. 52(b) (“Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”). The Supreme Court has stated that the courts of appeals “should correct a plain forfeited error affecting substantial rights if the error ‘seriously affeet[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”’ United States v. Olano, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 392, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)); see Jeffrey L. Lowry, Note, Plain Error Rule — Clarifying Plain Error Analysis Under Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 84 J.CRIM.L. & CRIMINOLOGY 1065, 1072-75 (1994) (discussing the Court’s opinion in Olano). This a heavy burden, and one that we conclude Garza has not met. It is well-known that sequestration is one of the most burdensome tools of the many available to assure a fair trial. United States v. Greer, 806 F.2d 556, 557 (5th Cir.1986). Even when error has been preserved, the defendant complaining of a refusal to sequester must demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prejudice flowing from the reversal to sequester before we can find an abuse of discretion. Id. at 557-58. Given our conclusion that the district court’s handling of the midtrial publicity was not an abuse of discretion, we cannot conclude that the court’s failure to sequester the jury sua sponte rose to the level of plain error. IV. EVIDENTIARY RULINGS Garcia contends that two of the district court’s evidentiary rulings constituted reversible error. First, he argues that the court erred by admitting extrinsic offense evidence at trial. The district court’s decision to admit extrinsic offense evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. United States v. Bruno, 809 F.2d 1097, 1106 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2198, 95 L.Ed.2d 853 (1987). The extrinsic offense evidence complained of by Garcia consisted of certain testimony by Gonzalez that tended to show that Garcia had been involved in cocaine trafficking with at least some of the Bermeas prior to the summer of 1988. The substance of this testimony was that Gonzalez encountered Guadalupe Bermea in a bar in the summer of 1988. Guadalupe Bermea complained to Gonzalez that Garcia would not give him $500 that he really needed after he, Baldemar Bermea, and their cousin, Tonio, had made Garcia a millionaire. Gonzalez asked Guadalupe Bermea what he meant, and Bermea responded that he, Baldemar Bermea, and Tonio had helped Garcia ship 2400 “ki’s” of cocaine to Los Angeles. Later, Gonzalez asked Garcia about the cocaine trafficking, and Garcia confirmed Guadalupe Bermea’s story. Garcia told Gonzalez that Avalos had concealed the cocaine in the hull of a fiberglass boat, Villarreal had driven the boat to Los Angeles, and Guadalupe Bermea, Baldemar Bermea, and Tonio had also been involved. Before Gonzalez’s testimony was elicited in the presence of the jury, the district judge conferred with the attorneys and heard Gonzalez’s testimony out of the jury’s presence. The judge overruled all objections to this testimony and administered a lengthy limiting instruction to the jury during the testimony to consider the evidence of a defendant’s other violations of law only in determining “the motive, the opportunity, the preparation, the plan, the knowledge, the identity, and the state of mind or intent with which the defendant may have — the defendant did the act charged in the indictment.” Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that [ejvidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or aceident[.] We review alleged violations of Rule 404(b) under the two-pronged test of United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 920, 99 S.Ct. 1244, 59 L.Ed.2d 472 (1979). That test requires us to verify (1) that the evidence of extraneous conduct is relevant to an issue other than a defendant’s character, and (2) that the evidence possesses probative value that is not substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice and is otherwise admissible under Rule 403. Id. Garcia focuses on the second Beechum prong, contending that Gonzalez’s testimony about the cocaine trafficking was inadmissible because its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. We have held that the mere entry of a not guilty plea in a conspiracy case raises the material issue of intent sufficiently to justify the admissibility of extrinsic offense evidence. United States v. Parziale, 947 F.2d 123, 129 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1499, 117 L.Ed.2d 638 (1992); United States v. Roberts, 619 F.2d 379, 383 (5th Cir.1980). The second prong of the Beechum analysis inquires whether Rule 403 has been satisfied, Beechum, 582 F.2d at 913, and we must take care not to infringe upon the “broad discretion,” Parziale, 947 F.2d at 129, of the trial court regarding the relevance, probative value, and prejudicial effect of evidence. Rule 408 tips the balance in favor of the admission of relevant evidence, permitting exclusion only if the evidence’s probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. As we observed in Beechum, similarity between the elements of the extrinsic offense and those of the charged offense may enhance the probative value of the extrinsic offense evidence. Beechum, 582 F.2d at 913. At the same time, a close resemblance between the extrinsic offense and the charged offense also increases the unfair prejudice to the defendant. Id. at 915 n. 20. It must also be remembered that the probative value of extrinsic offense evidence is not a constant; if the government already has a strong case on the issue of intent, the extrinsic offense evidence may add little to the government’s case and should be excluded more readily. Id. at 914. Although Garcia discusses Beechum in his brief at length, he does not explain how Beechum or any other case offers him solace on the instant facts; his assertion that the district court not only erred in performing the balancing test of Rule 403 but abused its discretion in so doing is wholly without factual support. We have frequently held in drug offense cases that evidence of a defendant’s extrinsic drug offenses is admissible. E.g., Parziale, 947 F.2d at 129; United States v. Harris, 932 F.2d 1529, 1534 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 270, 116 L.Ed.2d 223, and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 324, 116 L.Ed.2d 265 (1991), and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 914, 116 L.Ed.2d 814 (1992). A bald assertion that the probative value of extrinsic offense evidence was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial .effect does not show an abuse of discretion by the district court. Parziale, 947 F.2d at 129. Garcia seems to argue that the district judge committed reversible error because he did not make a determination out of the jury’s presence that Garcia committed the alleged extrinsic offense. This proposition is at odds with the Supreme Court’s decision in Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 689, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 1501, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988), in which the Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not require a district court to make a preliminary finding of fact that an alleged extrinsic offense or act has been proved by the government by a preponderance of the evidence. If the court determines, after introduction of the evidence, that the jury could not reasonably find that the alleged extrinsic act occurred by a preponderance of the evidence, however, the court must instruct the jury to disregard the evidence. Id. at 690, 108 S.Ct. at 1501-02. Garcia does not challenge the weight of the evidence supporting the extrinsic cocaine conspiracy, he only challenges the lack of a preliminary finding by the court that the extrinsic conspiracy existed. Because such a finding is not required, his challenge is without merit. Garcia also complains of the court’s decision admitting certain evidence seized from his residence in April 1989, approximately nine months after the end of the first conspiracy. The court admitted a document showing Pedraza to be the owner of a truck, an address book containing the names and telephone numbers of some of Garcia’s codefendants, and a piece of paper listing names and telephone numbers including “Ruben” and “Onorio.” The court did not, we note, admit certain other items that it deemed insufficiently connected to the case. We are unable to conclude that the district court’s admission of this evidence constituted an abuse of discretion and therefore reject Garcia’s contention. V. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT Garcia, Garza, Perez, Rodriguez, and Rogelio Bermea contend that their convictions should be reversed because of prose-cutorial misconduct. A criminal defendant bears a substantial burden when attempting to show that prosecutorial improprieties constitute reversible error. United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 956 (5th Cir.1990). Improper prosecutorial comments require reversal only if the comments substantially affected the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Id. In evaluating any effect on the right to a fair trial, we consider three factors: the magnitude of the prejudicial effect of the remarks, the efficacy of any cautionary instruction, and the strength of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Id. The misconduct complained of mus