Thomas is correct that we have been critical of the prosecution’s use of any form of the word “lie,” especially when characterizing the defendant’s testimony, see, e.g., United States v. White, 486 F.2d 204, 206 (2d Cir.1973) (stating that prosecutor’s assertion that defendant was lying and defense was fabricated was inconsistent with duty of prosecutor “to seek justice”), and we have even reversed convictions in extreme cases, see United States v. Drummond, 481 F.2d 62, 64 (2d Cir.1973) (reversing after repeated prosecutorial misconduct in trial, including comment that defendant’s testimony was “so riddled with lies it insults the intelligence of 14 intelligent people sitting on the jury”). However, we have also held that use of the word was not misconduct. See Resto, 824 F.2d at 212 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Peterson, 808 F.2d 969, 977
holding prosecutors statement that defendants testimony was outandout lies not improper because not excessive or inflammatory holding instruction to jury that counsels arguments were not evidence did not negatej the prejudicial effect of the prosecutors inflammatory comments holding prosecutors statement that defendant and defense counsel were lying when they pleaded not guilty was improper holding that the prosecutors indirect reference to a defendants prior conviction was improper holding that although states argument was improper and inflammatory conviction was affirmed because it probably did not affect the verdict