the blood on his clothes, the caliber of bullet used to kill Norman, the brain matter and blood on the truck, and the fact that defendant’s glasses were found inside the house. Although the defendant essentially attempts to reargue his case, a reasonable jury could clearly have found defendant guilty of Norman’s murder. B. Improper Vouching The defendant’s argument that the prosecutor engaged in improper trial tactics is also without merit. The Government argues that since the defendant did not object to any of the alleged misconduct at trial, we review for plain error. See United States v. Kerr, 981 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.1992). We need not address that question because we do not believe that any misconduct took place, and even if there was an error, such error was harmless. See id. (<HOLDING>). In a criminal case, the prosecutor cannot use
holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis holding improper vouching is subject to harmless error analysis holding confrontation clause violations subject to harmless error analysis holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis holding that confrontation clause issues are subject to harmless error analysis