that Appellant had devoted significant time to criticizing the reliability and methodology of the Commonwealth’s hair comparison evidence, based on Sur-ma’s testimony and that of the state trooper who had collected the hair. See N.T. Trial, 9/6/02, at 54-56, 75-78. The court then observed that the prosecutor’s use of the word “match” in his closing remarks “occurred within the qualifying context of his repeated use of the term ‘similar.’” PCRA Court Opinion at 76. The court determined that the single use of the word “match,” being one fleeting reference within an entire closing argument, did not cause the jury to form a fixed hostility toward Appellant nor prevent the jury from rendering a fair verdict. Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Steele, 599 Pa. 341, 961 A.2d 786, 832 (2008) (<HOLDING>). In accord with the long-standing principle
recognizing that a lawyers comments during closing argument may explain away the alleged prejudicial effect of the opposing parties closing argument comments holding that a defendant bears the burden of objecting to an allegedly improper closing argument at the time the improper argument is made holding that a fleeting reference within the context of an entire closing argument is not prejudicial citing numerous sources of authority holding that to obtain the proper context of a challenged statement made during closing arguments the court must recount in its entirety the portion of the closing argument wherein those statements appear holding that contract providing commission was to be paid within 72 hours of closing did not condition the payment of commission on the closing