didn’t stop there?” “The test is whether the comment is ‘manifestly intended to call attention to the defendant’s failure to testify, and is ... of such a character that the jury naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure to testify.’ ” United States v. Castillo, 866 F.2d 1071, 1083 (9th Cir.1988) (citing United States v. Bagley, 772 F.2d 482, 494 (9th Cir.1985)). No one, except for Williams, could testify as to his own mindset and why he took off running, as opposed to simply stopping when Officer Russell attempted to talk to him. Although the prosecutor did not refer to Williams by name, his comment drew the jury’s attention to his failure to testify and constituted prosecutorial misconduct. See, e.g., United States v. Sehnal, 930 F.2d 1420, 1425 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); see also Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805, 810
holding that the defendant could not show deficient performance if the evidence the defendant claims counsel should have sought to exclude was admissible holding where defense counsel argued that the prosecution had not presented the testimony of a law enforcement agent because it would have been favorable to the accused the prosecutor properly argued in rebuttal that clark could have called the agent as a witness on his own recognizing the possibility that a defendant could have been prejudiced by the actual conduct of a codefendants defense holding that trial court need not appoint an interpreter where counsel indicated that he could communicate with defendant and that defendant could understand questions and answers holding that it was improper when prosecutor posed questions to defense counsel that could have been read as posed only to the defendant and whose answers could only have been provided by the defendant