He contends that a mistrial should have been granted due to: (1) the misconduct of the prosecuting attorney, and (2) Sergeant DeGraff’s testimony about the guns found at Turbe’s house. Each of the asserted grounds is addressed below. 1. Prosecutorial Misconduct We review prosecutorial misconduct using a two-part test. First, we must determine whether the prosecutor’s conduct was improper. If so, we ask whether, in the context of the trial as a whole, the misconduct created sufficient prejudice as to violate the defendant’s due process rights. See Marshall v. Hendricks, 307 F.3d 36, 63-64 (3d Cir. 2002) (initially analyzing whether the prosecutor’s conduct at trial was improper, and if so, whether the misconduct violated the defendant’s due process rights). Here, th 8th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). In determining whether prosecutorial
holding that argument regarding victim of prior offense was improper holding that the prosecutors question to the defendant about a prior unrelated offense was improper holding that while the prosecutors question was improper in light of the overwhelming evidence there was no reversible error in the denial of defendants motion for mistrial holding that state prosecutors agreements with defendant not binding on federal prosecutors holding that the prosecutors indirect reference to a defendants prior conviction was improper