485 U.S. at 33, 108 S.Ct. 864; Lockett, 438 U.S. at 595, 98 S.Ct. 2954. This Court also has emphasized the importance of context in evaluating a prosecutor’s argument stating the fundamental rule that "[a] prosecutorial comment must be examined in light of its context within the entire court-martial.” United States v. Carter, 61 M.J. 30, 33 (C.A.A.F.2005); see, e.g., United States v. Baer, 53 M.J. 235, 238 (C.A.A.F.2000). 12 . Robinson, 485 U.S. at 33-34, 108 S.Ct. 864; Lockett, 438 U.S. at 595, 98 S.Ct. 2954. 13 . United States v. Doctor, 7 C.M.A. 126, 133-34, 21 C.M.R. 252, 259-60 (1956) (citations omitted); see United States v. Ruiz, 54 M.J. 138, 143-44 (C.A.A.F.2000). 14 . See United States v. Kemp, 13 C.M.A. 89, 98, 32 C.M.R. 89, 98 (1962); see, e.g., Carter, 61 M.J. at 34 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gilley, 56 M.J. 113, 123
holding that repeated references to uncontroverted evidence of an accuseds guilt throughout closing argument was reversible error where the comments were general and not tailored to the defense credibility argument holding that a defendant bears the burden of objecting to an allegedly improper closing argument at the time the improper argument is made recognizing that a lawyers comments during closing argument may explain away the alleged prejudicial effect of the opposing parties closing argument comments holding that there was no material prejudice arising from trial counsels repeated references to an accuseds invoking his right to counsel holding on habeas review that counsels failure to object to improper argument at trial did not prejudice petitioner where other evidence supported a guilty verdict and the jury was told closing argument was not evidence