was more important than his prosecution, considering the context, we can find no error, let alone plain error. That statement related to the evidence of record which showed that Bond’s testimony was gained by virtue of an agreement and that the Government’s star witness had his own credibility problems. Indeed the making of such “judgments” - routine exercises of prosecutorial discretion - commonly form the basis of defense attacks upon the prosecution when an uncharged accomplice cooperates by providing testimony. Since it was obvious to the jury that the Govern ment had charged Brennan, and since they learned from the testimony that the Government had not charged Bond, the prosecutor’s remark conveyed to the jurors no more than they already knew. See Saada, 212 F.3d at 225 (<HOLDING>); Milan, 304 F.3d at 289-90 (holding that it
holding that prosecutors reference to code of silence among witnesses to shooting not plain error where argument finds support in record holding that prosecutors reference to cooperation agreements with government witnesses was not plain error holding prosecutors reference to defendant being only witness in courtroom during testimony as tailoring opportunity not plain error holding that state prosecutors agreements with defendant not binding on federal prosecutors holding that prosecutors reference to the fact that not one white witness has produced contradictory evidence was plain error