COFFEY, Circuit Judge.

The defendant-appellant, Humberto Martin, in his appeal of his conspiracy to distribute cocaine alleges that the district court improperly informed the jury of his co-defendants' entries of pleas of guilty and that the trial court improperly compelled him to attend trial in identifiable prison clothing. We affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

On June 11, 1990, a grand jury returned a two-count indictment charging the defendant (Humberto Martin) with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and with possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 841(a)(1), and Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. Dionicio Lopez, Agerico Otero and Lillian Miranda also were charged in the indictment with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Miranda pled guilty later that month to one count of conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine and one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Defendants Martin, Lopez and Otero were scheduled for trial on August 1, 1990.

On the morning of trial, Martin, Lopez and Otero were seated together at the table with defendant's counsel. After the prospective jurors had been brought into the courtroom and while the voir dire examination was being conducted, counsel for the defendant Martin approached the bench and had the following sidebar exchange with the court:

"COUNSEL FOR MARTIN: Are you aware that the other two defendants are planning on pleading guilty?

THE COURT: Well, that's up to them when we have a break. But right now we are selecting a jury.

COUNSEL FOR MARTIN: I agree. And I want of record that I object to them being present during trial when it's apparent that they are going to —

THE COURT: They haven't seen fit to bring this up before me in a proper way. There is nothing before me at the present time.

COUNSEL FOR MARTIN: There are plenty of things that I can't have control over, but I do object."

Following this conversation the court completed the voir dire, sent the jury out of the courtroom, and accepted Lopez and Otero's pleas of guilty in the absence of the jury. When the jury returned to the courtroom, the judge informed the jury only that the case against Lopez and Otero had been " resolved."

Evidence at trial revealed that the defendant Martin was involved in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Jeffrey Stickney, a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration, testified that agents of the DEA began an investigation in March of 1990 involving the sale of cocaine. During that month, undercover DEA Agent, Frank Guerra, purchased approximately two ounces of cocaine from Lopez and Otero on two separate occasions. Agent Guerra testified that on May 8, 1990, he met with Lopez and the defendant Martin at a liquor store at Peterson and Lincoln Avenues in Chicago, Illinois to arrange for the delivery of two kilos of cocaine, and during the meeting the government agent wore a hidden tape recorder. The tape recording of Agent Guerra's conversation with the defendant Martin and Lopez was admitted in evidence demonstrating the defendant Martin's involvement in the conspiracy:

"DEFENDANT MARTIN: I am going to set aside one for you. He's going to set aside one for you, but it has to be for sure because this man . . . who's coming over here, he wanted all five . . . but I am going to set aside yours. I am going to give him three and a half . . . and one and a half.

AGENT GUERRA: Okay.

DEFENDANT MARTIN: You can count on this. I'm not going to leave you hanging."

The following day, May 9, 1990, DEA agents observed the defendant Martin and Lopez drive to Miranda's residence at 6049 North Albany in Chicago. A short time later the agents observed Martin leave the apartment, and enter a nearby Ford Probe, remove a white plastic bag and brief case, and return to the apartment. Shortly thereafter, Lopez left the apartment and drove the vehicle back to the same liquor store where he previously had been observed in the company of Agent Guerra. Lopez met two DEA agents and accompanied them to join Otero in another car. At this time the agents arrested Lopez and Otero.

Following the arrest of Lopez and Otero, the DEA agents arrested Miranda and the defendant Martin in Miranda's apartment. After receiving consent from Miranda to search her apartment, the agents discovered the plastic bag and brief case that Martin had carried with him into the apartment from the car. The bag contained approximately $87,000 in cash while the brief case held $86,935 in cash. The agents also recovered four ounces of cocaine in the bedroom.

The defendant Martin attended both days of his two-day jury trial in a blue jumpsuit given to nonbailed defendants awaiting trial and confined in the Chicago Metropolitan Correctional Center ("MCC"). After the first one-half day of trial and the voir dire examination and the jury selection had been completed, defense counsel objected to Martin's wearing his MCC-issued jumpsuit during trial, stating that he requested the marshal's office to give Martin civilian clothes to wear at trial, and that the marshals told him that they needed a minute order from the court to permit any defendant to change into civilian clothes. The court responded that according to a memorandum issued by the Chief Judge of the Northern District of Illinois, any request for different clothing should be made to the warden of the Metropolitan Correctional Center. According to the defendant, officials at the MCC subsequently refused a request to allow Martin to put on civilian clothes without an order from the trial judge.

Following the two-day trial, the jury found Martin guilty of both counts charged in the indictment, and he was sentenced to 137 months imprisonment followed by eight years of supervised release, together with a special assessment of $100.

II. ISSUES FOR REVIEW

The defendant Martin presents two issues for review: (1) whether the district court erred in refusing to grant his motion for mistrial after the court informed the jury that the case had been "resolved" with respect to the other defendants, and (2) whether the district judge committed reversible error when it refused to order the prison warden of the MCC to provide Martin with clothing other than the blue jumpsuit during the trial.

III. DISCUSSION [14] A. Mistrial Motion

The defendant-appellant Martin contends that the trial court committed error when failing to grant his motion for mistrial after the court informed the jury that the case had been " resolved" with respect to the other defendants. "The district court's decision to deny . . . [a] motion for mistrial is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard." United States v. Perez, 870 F.2d 1222, 1227 (7th Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Fulk, 816 F.2d 1202, 1205 (7th Cir. 1987)).

In his brief, the defendant Martin erroneously states that "the trial court improperly informed the jury that co-defendant's [sic] Otero and Lopez had pled guilty." However, the district court never stated that co-defendants Otero and Lopez had pled guilty but merely stated that the cases against Otero and Lopez had been " resolved":

"As I described the case to you this morning, there were four persons charged in the indictment in this case. And I told [you] this morning that matters had been resolved with respect to Lillian Miranda. The case has also been resolved with respect to Dionicio Lopez and Agerico Otero. And so you're not to consider that fact in any way in deciding as to the remaining defendant, Humberto Martin. You are only to consider the evidence as to Mr. Martin in this case."

(Emphasis added). The word "resolve" is defined in Webster's College Dictionary (Random House, 1991) as "to come to a definite or earnest decision about. . . ." The district court's use of "resolve" hardly implies that Otero and Lopez pled guilty, and for the defendant and/or his attorney to now claim that the district court informed the jury of the guilty pleas of Otero and Lopez is a blatant misrepresentation of the record. Furthermore, the record is most clear that the government never referred to the defendants, Lopez or Otero, as pleading guilty at any time during the trial. In fact, it was the defendant's trial counsel that made the guilty pleas of Lopez and Otero an issue when he told the jury during his closing argument in referencing to Lopez and Otero that "[t]he government got their drug dealers." By noting that the "government got their drug dealers," Martin's counsel attempted to convince the jury of Martin's relative innocence. Thus, for Martin to argue on appeal that he was prejudiced by the jurors' knowledge that Lopez and Otero pled guilty when it was Martin's own counsel who brought this information to the jury's attention in order to gain a tactical advantage is disingenuous at best.

Moreover, Martin's contention that the presence of Lopez and Otero during jury selection and their subsequent absence at trial was prejudicial to him because the jury inferred that Lopez and Otero had pled guilty is equally without merit. We have previously ruled that a co-defendant's entry of a guilty plea during trial is not in and of itself prejudicial to the remaining defendant(s). See United States v. McGrath, 811 F.2d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir. 1987); United States v. Kahn, 381 F.2d 824 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1015, 88 S.Ct. 591, 592, 19 L.Ed.2d 661 (1967). The fact that jurors may have known that Martin's "codefendant[s] had pleaded guilty [is] not a ground for a mistrial, as we have held many times." United States v. Gutman, 725 F.2d 417, 422 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880, 105 S.Ct. 244, 83 L.Ed.2d 183 (1984); United States v. Aldridge, 484 F.2d 655 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 922, 94 S.Ct. 1423, 39 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974). Martin has failed to demonstrate prejudice merely because of the absence of Lopez and Otero from the courtroom during trial, and there is no indication in the record that the jury's finding of guilty against Martin was influenced by the guilty pleas of Lopez and Otero. Indeed, Martin has failed to specifically cite how he was prejudiced by any juror's alleged knowledge that Lopez and Otero pled guilty. Martin's claim that the jury inferred from the absence of Lopez and Otero that the two pled guilty is without merit because the jury could just as easily have believed that the charges against the two had been dismissed or that their cases were joined with another case for trial, or for that matter had been transferred to another judge for trial or adjourned. Were we to agree with Martin's claim of prejudice, which we do not, it would make it virtually impossible for a defendant in a multiple-defendant case to change his plea and enter a plea of guilty once the trial has commenced.

After informing the jury that the case had been resolved, the district court gave the following cautionary instruction: "And so you're not to consider that fact in any way in deciding as to the remaining defendant, Humberto Martin. You are only to consider the evidence as to Mr. Martin in this case." "[W]ithout a convincing demonstration otherwise, it is to be presumed that clear and strong cautionary instructions are curative." United States v. Aldridge, 484 F.2d at 659 (quoting United States v. Kahn, 381 F.2d at 838). In addition, at the end of the trial, the court further instructed the jury that Martin was presumed innocent of the charges and that the guilty plea of the government's witness, Lillian Miranda, was not to be considered as evidence against Martin:

"The defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges. This presumption remains with the defendant throughout every stage of the trial and during your deliberations on the verdict. And it is not overcome unless from all of the evidence in the case you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

"The witness, Lillian Miranda, has pleaded guilty to crimes arising out of the same occurrences for which the defendant is now on trial. You may give the witness' testimony such weight as you feel it deserves, keeping in mind that it must be considered with caution and great care. Moreover, the guilty plea of Lillian Miranda is not to be considered as evidence against the defendant."

Moreover, we note that Martin's trial counsel never proposed a specific instruction to explain the absence of Lopez and Otero following jury selection. Because Martin has failed to demonstrate prejudice much less argue that the jury disregarded the cautionary instruction or the final jury instruction, we hold that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion or commit trial error in accepting the co-defendants' pleas of guilty in the manner she did during the course of the trial in the jury's absence, and furthermore, the court's denial of Martin's motion for mistrial was proper.

B. Prison Jumpsuit

The defendant Martin contends that because the district court refused to issue an order allowing him to wear civilian clothes during trial, he was in effect prejudiced by being compelled to wear an MCC-issued jumpsuit. Even though the defendant Martin admits in his brief that "this jumpsuit may not, by itself, be identifiable as prison garb," the fact that Lopez and Otero were present during voir dire wearing jumpsuits that were identical to Martin's enabled the jury to conclude that the jumpsuits were prison garb. Thus, Martin argues that the district court committed reversible error.

It is well settled that a "state cannot, consistent with the accused's right to a fair trial as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, compel a defendant to stand trial before a jury in identifiable prison attire." Tarpley v. Dugger, 841 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976)). However, the Supreme Court in Estelle noted that the accused must timely object to being tried in prison garb and that "the failure to make an objection to the court as to being tried in such [identifiable prison] clothes, for whatever reason, is sufficient to negate the presence of compulsion necessary to establish a constitutional violation." Estelle, 425 U.S. at 512-13, 96 S.Ct. at 1697 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court in Estelle reversed the Fifth Circuit's determination that the defendant had been compelled to attend trial in identifiable prison garb. The Fifth Circuit noted that the general practice at the time of the defendant's trial was that nonbailed defendants in the trial court's jurisdiction were tried in jail clothes. In reversing the Fifth Circuit, the Court stated that "[n]otwithstanding the evidence as to the general practice . . . there was no finding that nonbailed defendants were compelled to stand trial in prison garments if timely objection was made to the trial judge." Estelle, id. at 510, 96 S.Ct. at 1696 (emphasis added). The Court concluded:

"Nothing in this record, therefore, warrants a conclusion that [the defendant] was compelled to stand trial in jail garb or that there was sufficient reason to excuse the failure to raise the issue before trial."

Id. at 512, 96 S.Ct. at 1697 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).

The defendant Martin failed to object to wearing a plain/unmarked jumpsuit until after the first one-half day of trial and the completion of the voir dire. The district court responded to this objection by stating that according to a memorandum issued by the Chief Judge of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, a request by a defendant for a suit of clothes should be made to the warden of the Chicago Metropolitan Correctional Center. According to Martin's counsel, officials at the MCC refused to allow Martin to don a suit of clothes absent an order from the district court. However, as the district court noted, if Martin did not want to wear government-issued clothing during his court appearance, he or his counsel should have timely raised the issue on the record before the start of trial to give the court authorities and the U.S. Marshal time to make the necessary arrangements.

Like the defendant in Estelle, the defendant in the case before us failed to make a timely objection. Any prejudice that may have occurred from the jury observing Martin in plain/unmarked government-issued clothing could have been prevented by the defense counsel making a timely objection to the court on the record before any trial proceedings had commenced and not waiting until the middle of the first day of trial after the entire jury selection process and the empaneling of the jury had been completed to arrange for other clothing. Obviously, even if the district court had allowed Martin to change clothes mid-trial, the defendant's counsel's failure to make a proper and timely objection on the record before any trial proceedings, would have given the jury the opportunity to observe Martin in MCC-issued clothing. Furthermore, counsel for the defendant Martin also failed to request a curative instruction from the court to reduce any alleged prejudice Martin's clothing might have had on the jury. We note also that the defendant is unable to demonstrate that the plain/unmarked jumpsuit that he wore during the two days of trial was clearly identifiable as prison clothing. Unlike the defendant in Estelle whose clothes were readily identifiable and distinctively marked as prison-issue, the defendant Martin in this case wore a plain single-color jumpsuit devoid of any letters, markings, or numbers that would designate it as prison garb. As Martin notes in his brief, "this jumpsuit may not, by itself, be identifiable as prison garb." However, Martin contends that because be, Lopez and Otero wore identical jumpsuits in front of the jury, "[t]here can be no doubt in the jury's mind that this was prison clothing." Unlike the defendant, we are unconvinced that the jury made the inference that three co-defendants who were wearing plain single-color jumpsuits necessarily established that the clothing was prison garb. Furthermore, since the record does not support an inference that the average juror realizes that prisoners wear jumpsuits, we may not assume that the jury perceived the jumpsuits as prison uniforms in view of the district court's specific finding that Martin's clothes were not obvious prison garb. This finding of fact is subject to the "clearly erroneous standard." See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 572, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). "This standard plainly does not entitle the reviewing court to reverse the finding of the trier of facts simply because it is convinced that it would have decided the case differently." Id. at 573, 105 S.Ct. at 1511. Thus, we will not upset the district court's finding of fact that Martin's clothes were not obvious prison garb.

Martin's presence before the jurors in a plain/unmarked jumpsuit was by no means as potentially prejudicial as prisoners being shackled or bound, and we note these practices have been allowed by the Supreme Court:

"Notwithstanding the importance of [the general rule against the use of physical restraints in the courtroom] to insuring a fair trial, a defendant's right to appear and to have his witnesses appear without restraints is not absolute. In Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. [337], 344, 90 S.Ct. [1057,] 1061 [ 25 L.Ed.2d 353] [(1970)], the Supreme Court stated that binding . . . a defendant is permissible when necessary to control contumacious conduct at trial."

Harrell v. Israel, 672 F.2d 632, 635 (7th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). Like the defendant in the case before us, the petitioner in Harrell did not object in a timely fashion to the complained of procedure:

"It is also significant that petitioner raised no objection to the trial judge's shackling order when it was first issued. In an analogous context, a defendant's failure to object to being tried in prison garb was found by the Supreme Court to negate his claim that he was compelled to stand trial in such attire against his will. Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691 [ 48 L.Ed.2d 126] (1976). The Court reasoned in Estelle that because a defendant may elect to wear prison clothing in an attempt to elicit sympathy from the jury, a due process claim based on that fact could not be sustained on appeal in the absence of a showing that the defendant had been forced to appear in prison clothing over his specific objection. Although we do not rely solely upon the rationale of Estelle for our conclusion here, we find the fact that petitioner did not object supportive of our conclusion that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion."

Id. at 637 (emphasis added). As a result of Martin's failure to make a timely objection, the district court did not err in refusing to allow him to change into civilian clothes part way through the trial where the defendant had failed to make a proper, timely objection.

We refuse to hold that the wearing of an unmarked government-issued jumpsuit could rise to the level of a constitutional error. But even if we were to find that the district court erred in refusing to grant the defendant's untimely request for civilian clothing and thus prejudiced his rights, this error would be harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt in the cocaine conspiracy. The Supreme Court recently stated:

"Since this Court's landmark decision in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), in which we adopted the general rule that a constitutional error does not automatically require reversal of a conviction, the Court has applied harmless error analysis to a wide range of errors and has recognized that most constitutional errors can be harmless. . . . In applying harmless-error analysis . . . the Court has been faithful to the belief that the harmless-error doctrine is essential to preserve the `principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant's guilt or innocence, and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focussing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error."

Arizona v. Fulminante, ___ U.S. ___, ___-___, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1263-64, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). This circuit has recently addressed the harmless error doctrine of Chapman:

"We recognize that "there can be no such thing as an error free, perfect trial, and that the Constitution does not guarantee such a trial. . . . Since Chapman, the Court has consistently made clear that it is the duty of a reviewing court to consider the trial record as a whole and to ignore errors that are harmless, including most constitutional violations.' United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 508-09, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1980, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). While [the petitioner's] trial was not perfect, and we might add, very few are, any error was harmless in view of the overpowering evidence of his guilt."

Hunter v. Clark, 934 F.2d 856, 860 (7th Cir. 1991).

The overwhelming evidence of Martin's guilt in this cocaine conspiracy and the applicable case law mandate that we hold that any error that occurred as a result of the district court's failure to grant the defendant's untimely request for civilian clothing is harmless. Undercover DEA agent, Frank Guerra, testified at trial regarding a meeting with Lopez and the defendant Martin that occurred on May 8, 1990, in which the three discussed arrangements for the delivery of two kilograms of cocaine. The tape recording of Agent Guerra's discussion with the defendant Martin and Lopez was admitted in evidence and demonstrated that Martin negotiated for the delivery of two kilograms of cocaine:

"MARTIN: I am going to set aside one for you. He's going to set aside one for you . . . but it has to be for sure because this man . . . who's coming over here[,] he wanted all five . . . but I am going to set aside yours . . . I am going to give him three and a half . . . and one and a half . . . .

GUERRA: Okay. . . .

MARTIN: You can count on this. I'm not going to leave you hanging."

In addition, Martin also provided Agent Guerra with his beeper number and arranged a time to meet Agent Guerra the following day in order to complete the transaction:

"GUERRA: I . . . I'll call you when I already have the money.

MARTIN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) telephone (VOICES OVERLAP) . . . no.

GUERRA: On my hand.

MARTIN: 420-87 you call me.

GUERRA: Yours? Yours I have it . . . yes . . . 420-87 . . . .

MARTIN: Tomorrow you call me. What (UNINTELLIGIBLE) you put down for me? I don't remember anymore.

GUERRA: Zero . . . a double zero.

* * * * * *

GUERRA: Once . . . once I have the money in my hand, I'll call you tomorrow.

MARTIN: That's fine.

GUERRA: Figure about . . .

MARTIN: At about 3:00.

GUERRA: Between 2:00 and 4:00 to be sure.

MARTIN: Let's do it as soon as possible to see if tomorrow I . . . these people leave . . . that's already on it's way . . . .

MARTIN: Something big is on its way."

Moreover, the following day, May 9, 1990, DEA agents observed Martin leave Miranda's apartment and retrieve a white plastic bag and briefcase from a car parked nearby, and return to the apartment. During their consensual search of Miranda's apartment later that day, DEA agents discovered the plastic bag and briefcase that Martin had carried with him into the apartment from the car. Each held approximately $87,000.00 in cash.

Thus, the above-cited evidence, combined with the other evidence received at trial, including but not limited to Martin's pivotal role in conducting negotiations for the cocaine delivery and his being entrusted with over $170,000.00 of the conspiracy's cash, clearly points to his active participation in the conspiracy to distribute cocaine. We are convinced that even if the district court had committed error when it refused to grant Martin's counsel's untimely request to obtain civilian clothing for his client, such error would have been harmless.

IV. CONCLUSION

The decision of the district court is

AFFIRMED.