of not guilty and the resulting trial”) (citation omitted); People v. Crouch, 64 Mich.App. 98, 235 N.W.2d 74, 75 (1975) (reversing where prosecutor commented on defendant’s election of a trial by jury, because “[t]o argue to a jury that a defendant should, in effect, be penalized because he chose to exercise those rights guaranteed to him by the constitutions, Federal and state, is gross incurable error”) (citations omitted); Brooks v. State, 763 So.2d 859, 864 (Miss.2000) (reversing based on the prosecutor’s remarks regarding defendant’s failure to plead guilty and exercise of his right to a jury and analogizing to cases where reversal was based on improper argument concerning a defendant’s decision not to testify); State v. Thompson, 118 N.C.App. 33, 454 S.E.2d 271, 276-77 (1995) (<HOLDING>); State v. Tumbleson, 105 Ohio App.3d 693, 664
holding that testimony at trial in violation of defendants constitutional confrontation right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative holding that prosecutors comments asserting defendant was hiding behind the law and sticking the law in somebodys eye was improper comment on the right to a jury trial but was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding the state failed to meet its burden of showing the erroneous jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where it did not address the issue on appeal holding that trial court must determine whether fifth amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that appellate court should review error in trial procedure to determine if it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt