Page:Samia v. United States.pdf/3

Rh [limiting] instructions in a criminal case and strive to understand, make sense of, and follow’ ” them. United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725, 740. And the presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions applies to statements that are substantially more credible and inculpatory than a codefendant’s confession. See, e.g., Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222, 223–225. To disregard or to make unnecessary exceptions to this principle “would make inroads into th[e] entire complex code of … criminal evidentiary law, and would threaten other large areas of trial jurisprudence.” Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, 562. Pp. 8–9.