sense of justice, or from connecting the point to the victims in the case,” Bedford v. Collins, 567 F.3d 225, 234 (6th Cir.2009) (citations omitted), “the prosecution may not urge jurors to identify individually with the victims with comments like ‘it could have been you,’ ” Boyd, 640 F.3d at 670. Asking the jury to show the same courage as. David Harper blurs the line between connecting the point to the victim and asking the jury to identify with the victim. Even so, this improper statement is not flagrant because, again, it was one isolated statement. Although unnecessary, it “goes no further than similar comments that have not required setting aside a[] conviction, particularly under plain error review.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Bedford, 567 F.3d at 234 (<HOLDING>) (citing Olsen v. McFaul, 843 F.2d 918, 930
holding that the cumulative effect of the prosecutors comments which as seen above are welldocumented errors denied appellant a fair trial holding that the fraud claims against the defendant should not have been dismissed as the complaint provided him with fair notice of the claims made against her holding that an interpreters occasional lapses from first to third person when interpreting for the victim did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial holding that the prosecutors description of the defendant as a demon did not deprive him of a fair trial holding that plain error is the appropriate standard of review when a defendant objects to a prosecutors comments at trial does not move for a mistrial and then on appeal argues that the comments deprived him of a fair trial