when the argument shifts its emphasis from evidence to emotion.” Id. The Doe court emphasized two factors which push prosecutorial comments over into the danger zone: (1) the frequency level of improper comments and (2) the nature of the comments. Id. at 26-27. The Doe court chides the Government for portraying its own misconduct as “fleeting” and “insignificant,” and rectifies this inaccuracy by pointing out several improper prosecutorial statements. Id. at 27. The Doe court also suggests that the nature of the comment is pertinent and often determinative in assessing the magnitude of prejudice. Id. Several other courts have held that the nature of the prosecutorial commentary is an important factor in assessing prejudice. See United States v. Kirvan, 997 F.2d 963, 965 (1st Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Rodriguez Cortes, 949 F.2d
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 defendants testimony was outandout lies not improper because not excessive or inflammatory holding that state prosecutors agreements with defendant not binding on federal prosecutors holding that the prosecutors reference to the defendant as portuguese was not inflammatory but a permissible tool for describing the defendant holding that the prosecutors indirect reference to a defendants prior conviction was improper