even its factually misleading and legally incorrect character because of the attribution to the Georgia Supreme Court. Absent the attribution, the claim would have been severely prejudicial. Telling the jurors that the sentiment was that of the highest court in the state created a severe danger that they would defer to such an expert legal judgment in their choice of penalty. Even though this was the sole impropriety in Huffs closing, it is extremely disturbing. In considering this argument in light of the facts of this ease, we conclude that Drake has shown a “reasonable probability” that this improper remark caused the death verdict. While the evidence of a vicious attack on Eberhart was overwhelming, the evidence to implicate Drake was not. See Brooks v. Kemp, 762 F.2d at 1402 n. 27 (<HOLDING>); see also, Strickland v. Washington, — U.S. -,
holding that the bia rule is unreasonable in this context recognizing that comity is particularly important in context of foreign bankruptcy proceedings holding controlling question in entrapment defense is whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials recognizing that it is appropriate in this context to consider weakness in the evidence of guilt since an important aspect of the jurisprudence is to minimize the risk that an innocent person will be executed holding that while the nonprevailing partys financial condition is not appropriate to consider in determining whether to award attorneys fees it is appropriate to consider when determining the amount of the attorneys fees