145 F.3d 1433, 1438 (11th Cir.1998). To assess the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s comments, we “evaluate them in the context of the trial as a whole and assess their probable impact on the jury.” Id. “A defendant’s substantial rights are prejudicially affected when a reasonable probability arises that, but for the remarks, the outcome would be different.” United States v. Hall, 47 F.3d 1091, 1098 (11th Cir.1995). A prosecutor’s personal attacks on defense counsel may constitute prosecutorial misconduct. See, e.g., United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 9, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1043, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (noting that counsel “must not be permitted to make unfounded and inflammatory attacks on the opposing advocate”); United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 958 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, a prosecutor impermissibly
holding that defense counsel opened the door to the states rebuttal remarks when defense counsel raised the issue in his closing argument holding that prosecutors remarks that defense counsel was a zealot in the courtroom and thank god hes a defense attorney and not part of the government were improper holding prosecutors argument that defense counsel was manufacturing evidence and thus suborning perjury was improper holding prosecutors statement that defendant and defense counsel were lying when they pleaded not guilty was improper holding that a prosecutors remarks referring to defense witnesses as a pack of liars were improper but not fundamental error court unable to review on appeal because trial counsel failed to preserve error