despite improper remarks by the prosecutor as to the defendant’s motivation to stand trial rather than plead)). Absent such a showing of unfairness and prejudice, prosecuto-rial misconduct alone does not require invalidation of a conviction or sentence. See Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 220, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). In this case, the comments were an isolated reference made once during the course of a four-week trial, thus distinguishing the comments from cases involving repeated improper remarks. See, e.g., Mastrangelo, 172 F.3d at 296-98 (involving repeated misstatement and mis-characterization of stipulation relating to key element of offense, where Court’s curative instruction also misstated the stipulation); United States v. Murrah, 888 F.2d 24, 28 (5th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). In fact, the prosecution ended its rebuttal
holding that repeated and pervasive remarks evaluating evidence referring to witness who did not testify and accusing opposing counsel of misconduct were designed to divert jurys attention from the charged offenses holding that the prosecutors improper remarks referring to the defendants exercise of his constitutional right to a trial by jury was not plain error requiring reversal recognizing that where witness has no constitutional or statutory right to refuse to testify jurors are entitled to draw negative inference from witness refusal to testify holding that the clients right to its chosen counsel superseded the opposing partys right to call that counsel as a witness when there were other witnesses available to testify to the same facts holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case