more likely to suggest the culpability of the defendant by reference to something other than the facts of the charged crime. This case is distinguishable from Wimberly v. State, 41 So.3d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), where we found certain statements by the prosecutors in closing argument to be “improper and objectionable.” Id. at 302. In a case where the prosecution had problems with its witnesses’ memories, one prosecutor argued that the neighborhood where a shooting occurred was a “close community” where people “want to protect each other” and “certainly don’t want to talk to police.” Id. We found this argument was “improper for the reason that these comments were completely unsupported by any evidence at trial.” Id.; accord United States v. Price, 346 F. App’x 796, 803-04 (3d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Flowers v. State, 858 A.2d 328, 331-32
holding improper a prosecutors comments on the character of a neighborhood and its inhabitants where there was no supporting evidence holding that while the prosecutors question was improper in light of the overwhelming evidence there was no reversible error in the denial of defendants motion for mistrial holding that the prosecutors question to the defendant about a prior unrelated offense was improper holding that defense counsel had invited prosecutors comments on parole law holding prosecutors argument that defense counsels goal was to keep evidence from the jury was improper