merely made the point that Muhammad’s continued resistance caused the force escalation, not that Muhammad asked for excessive force. We conclude that allowing the attorney’s comments did not amount to plain error on the part of the district court. Even assuming counsel’s comments were objectionable, Muhammad has not shown plain error. To secure a reversal under the plain error standard, Muhammad must show that defense counsel’s comments caused an error constituting a “manifest miscarriage of justice.” Southern Pine Helicopters, Inc. v. Phoenix Aviation Managers, Inc., 320 F.3d 838, 840 (8th Cir.2003). If the plaintiffs attorney is given an opportunity to rebut an erroneous argument, this may explain away any prejudicial effect. See Rogers v. Rulo, 712 F.2d 363, 367 n. 3 (8th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Here, Muhammad’s attorney had an opportunity
recognizing that the defenses response argument at closing can ameliorate the improper prosecutorial comments recognizing that a lawyers comments during closing argument may explain away the alleged prejudicial effect of the opposing parties closing argument comments holding that repeated references to uncontroverted evidence of an accuseds guilt throughout closing argument was reversible error where the comments were general and not tailored to the defense credibility argument holding that to obtain the proper context of a challenged statement made during closing arguments the court must recount in its entirety the portion of the closing argument wherein those statements appear recognizing that trial courts have discretion in regulating comments to be made in closing arguments