or “there’s no magic here because the defendant’s witnesses cannot be trusted,” such comments may have been improper. See United States v. Krebs, 788 F.2d 1166, 1176 (6th Cir.1986). Petitioner next argues the prosecutor misrepresented the evidence by stating Detective Kimberly Rudolph “gave them two $20s because Mr. Perry said, Let’s get out of here” (Doc. No. 11, Ex. 31, p. 429). However, the Court agrees with the Magistrate’s conclusion that the prosecutor’s statement was not improper, nor misleading, as he merely paraphrased Detective Rudolph’s testimony (see Doc. No. 11, Ex. 26, pp. 214-15). In addition, the prosecutor’s statement is not similar to the statement made by the prosecutor in Macias v. Makowski, 291 F.3d 447 (6th Cir.2002), the case relied upon by Petitioner. Id. at 453 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, there was no misstatement of the
holding that the prosecutor acted improperly when he misstated that the key witness had not come forward until the day before trial when the witness had actually come forward over two months before trial holding request made two months before trial timely recognizing the witnesss failure to come forward promptly may impact the credibility of the witness holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand holding that affidavit from a new witness was not newly discovered evidence because trial counsel knew of the existence of the witness before trial trial counsel with due diligence could have discovered the evidence