prohibitions against double jeopardy. See Posey v. State, 805 P.2d 687, 688 (Okla.Crim.App. 1991). Because that decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable interpretation of Supreme Court precedent, the magistrate judge concluded she was bound by the OCCA determination of state legislative intent. The magistrate judge similarly concluded that Hastings’ claim based on prosecutorial misconduct was without merit. The magistrate judge began by noting that “[pjrosecutorial misconduct does not warrant federal habeas relief unless the conduct complained of is so egregious as to render the entire proceedings against the defendant fundamentally unfair.” Smallwood v. Gibson, 191 F.3d 1257, 1275 (10th Cir.1999). In this particular case, the evidence of Hastings’ guilt was strong. See id. (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the prosecution argument was an
recognizing review for fundamental unfairness as an independent extrastatutory ground holding that in light of strong evidence of guilt tainted evidence was harmless under brecht recognizing review for fundamental unfairness of the proceedings as an independent extrastatutory ground holding that unquestionable lack of actual prejudice weighs against a finding of a speedy trial violation holding that strong evidence of guilt weighs against finding fundamental unfairness