Slagle’s claim for prosecutorial misconduct. The warden argues that Slagle cannot challenge seventeen of the prosecution’s alleged improper comments because Slagle failed to make a contemporaneous objection to those statements at trial. Although Ohio’s contemporaneous objection rule can be an adequate and independent state ground that is sufficient to foreclose Slagle’s challenges to those comments, see Biros v. Bagley, 422 F.3d 379, 387 (6th Cir.2005); Williams v. Bagley, 380 F.3d at 968-69, two considerations counsel against applying a procedural bar to his challenges. First, the warden’s objection in her brief to this court was insufficient because she has not identified with specificity which statements are allegedly defaulted. See Baze v. Parker, 371 F.3d 310, 320 (6th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The warden merely says that “17 of the 24
holding state is required to raise procedural bar as affirmative defense or it is waived holding that guarantors can waive the defense before default holding that the government did not waive an affirmative defense not pleaded in the answer because it raised the defense at a pragmatically sufficient time by listing the defense in the joint pretrial order holding that the state may waive the affirmative defense of procedural default by failing to assert it holding a plaintiff cannot assert a violation of the ecoa as an affirmative defense