statements calculated to incite the passions and prejudices of the jurors.” Broom v. Mitchell, 441 F.3d 392, 412 (6th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has explained that prosecutors must temper their arguments to avoid unfair trials because “[the prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to' a co local community interests of jurors,” meaning that prosecutors may not “urge jurors to convict a criminal defendant in order to protect community values, preserve civil order, or deter future lawbreaking.” United States v. Solivan, 937 F.2d 1146, 1152-53 (6th Cir.1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). Appeals to community interests are particularly problematic when the prosecutor references controversial, contemporaneous events. Id. at 1153 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Barker, 553 F.2d 1013, 1025
holding that alleged prosecutorial misconduct must be evaluated in light of the prosecutors argument and the entire record and if a review of the record convinces the court that the jury would have convicted defendant even if it were not exposed to the alleged improper prosecutorial comments then no actual prejudice occurred holding the trial courts subsequently corrected instruction that the jury must find the defendant personally committed the offenses in order to convict the defendant on those charges did not prejudice the defendant holding that comments that implied that the drug trade would continue if the jury did not convict the defendant were improper recognizing that a curative instruction may make it highly unlikely that improper comments misled the jury holding that comments that if jurors acquit then they are accomplices to future murders were improper