very well continue indefinitely. 34 . If that were the question, no petitioner would ever be entitled to habeas relief. This court has no doubt that the state court judges in Oklahoma, Colorado, Kan OCCA's unanimous concerns about Miller's and Macy's misconduct were "overwrought.” Dissenting Op. at 765. The irony of the dissent’s assessment speaks for itself. The dissent further asserts that our reading of the prosecutors' statements is "selective.” Dissenting Op. at 759-60. It is the dissent, however, that in trying to rehabilitate the prosecutors' clearly improper comments on jury unanimity and nullification adopts a selective and stilted view of the record. Miller’s and Macy’s improper remarks about jury unanimity and nullification certainly do not stand alone. Hooks, 19 P.3d at 315 (<HOLDING>); id. (holding prosecutors erroneously argued
holding prosecutors misstated the law as applied to oklahomas heinous atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstances and additionally encouraged the jurors to decide the question on the basis or sympathy for the victims holding that the impact upon the victims is relevant to circumstances of the crime holding that the unconstitutionality of the especially heinous atrocious or cruel instruction was compelled by godfrey holding that the trial court did not err in using the particularized factual circumstances of the case namely the victims age  as an aggravating factor holding where reasonable difference of opinion as to whether the defendants act was the or a proximate cause of the injury the matter is for the jury to decide