which included testimony from his accountant about his non-drug income: “Why did he choose to call an accountant? ... To make himself look like a legitimate businessman? I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen that this was nothing short of deception ... and even somewhat insulting.” Although a suggestion to the jury that it should be insulted will in some circumstances have the potential to cause impermissible consideration of issues beyond the evidence, context is important. Here, Matias’s defense included the possibility that his sole source of income was legitimate, even though he testified to extensive marijuana dealing. In context, the statement was not improper as a shorthand for “insulting to the jury’s intelligence.” See Obershaw v. Lanman, 453 F.3d 56, 66 (1st Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Affirmed. 1 . See 21 U.S.C. §§
holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify holding that there was no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial based on a comment that the defendant was in prison where the comment provided the jury with little detail recognizing the right of a defendant to comment upon the failure of the state to produce evidence holding in a habeas proceeding that prosecutions statement during summation that a defense claim was an insult to your intelligence  as jurors could reasonably be seen as a comment based on the evidence where the state court described the comment as a rhetorical flourish undoubtedly recognizable to the jury as such citing commonwealth v obershaw 435 mass 794 762 ne2d 276 289 2002