Mitchell, thereby implying that every witness, whether material or not, no matter how cumulative the evidence might be, should have been heard or seen. Such an argument is not tantamount to an improper missing witness inference and does not invoke the “invited response” doctrine. In response to defense counsel’s argument, the prosecutor did not contend that defense counsel inferred that any witnesses that were not called would have testified unfavorably to the State. Instead, the prosecutor stated that the inference drawn by defense counsel was “that the State was holding back something.” An inference that the State is “holding back” does not amount to a statement that witnesses not called by the State would have testified unfavorably to the prosecution. A party may (4th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); accord People v. Kliner, 185 Ill.2d 81, 235
holding that prosecutors remarks were harmless in light of overwhelming evidence against defendants holding that prosecutors remarks regarding the defendants subpoena power were a justified defensive response holding that state prosecutors agreements with defendant not binding on federal prosecutors holding that the prosecutors improper remarks referring to the defendants exercise of his constitutional right to a trial by jury was not plain error requiring reversal holding that it is not improper for a prosecutor to comment on a defendants subpoena power  particularly when done in response to a defendants argument about the prosecutors failure to call a specific witness  quoting united states v blackman 66 f3d 1572 1578 n 7 11th cir1995