isolated statements about the community’s drug problem). Here, although the highly charged nature of the context could lead to prejudicial comments, one isolated statement does not rise to the level of flagrancy- Poandl’s second challenged statement fails for similar reasons. Poandl contends that the prosecutor appealed to the jury’s sympathy for David Harper by stating: I would ask you to consider David Harper. What’s he gain out of this? What’s he win? Trust. Trust and courage, I guess. Courage is a word I would also want you to think about with David Harper. He would want you to show the same courage. He is asking for your trust. He has exposed his life, and he would ask you to show that same courage. Although “[n]othing prevents the government from appealing to the Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>), and Byrd v. Collins, 209 F.3d 486, 536 (6th
holding that admission of statement with references to we or they which did not directly implicate defendant did not violate defendants confrontation rights holding that evidence obtained from valid search warrant did not violate constitutional due process provisions holding that prosecutors deliberate repeated references to defendant as a deadbeat a thief a creep and a liar did not violate due process holding that the defendant bears the burden of proof and that such a disposition does not violate the due process clause holding that doctrine does not violate due process