rebuttal closing argument that the jurors should not believe the victim because he was following “the law of the streets.... ” Lee, 405 Md. at 156, 950 A.2d at 130. We held that defense counsel’s argument regarding the veracity of the victim’s testimony was not improper, and, therefore, the prosecutor’s “law of the streets” argument could not be justified under the “invited response” doctrine. Lee, 405 Md. at 170, 950 A.2d at 138; see also Johnson v. State, 325 Md. 511, 519, 601 A.2d 1093, 1097 (1992) (determining that the prosecutor’s improper remarks in rebuttal closing argument could not be justified because defense counsel’s closing argument was not improper). In the instant case, like in Lee, defense counsel’s closing argument was insufficient to invoke the “invited 4, 33 (2000) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 360 Md. 276, 757 A.2d 811
holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify holding the state cannot comment on a defendants failure to produce evidence to refute an element of the crime because doing so could erroneously lead the jury to believe that the defendant had the burden of introducing evidence holding that it was permissible for prosecutor to comment on the general failure of the defense to produce any evidence recognizing the right of a defendant to comment upon the failure of the state to produce evidence holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense