(the Last Supper) and implicitly compared the defendant to Judas Iscariot and continued with the story even after an objection was sustained; district court held that the prosecutor came close to striking the type of “foul blow” decried by Justice Sutherland in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935), but nevertheless found that petitioner was not denied a fundamentally fair trial on the basis of those comments). However, the Court cannot find that trial counsel’s failure to object to the remark amounted to constitutionally ineffective assistance. First of all, it is very possible that counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to object t 7 U.S. 1228, 116 S.Ct. 1864, 134 L.Ed.2d 962 (1996); Gatto v. Hoke, 809 F.Supp. 1030, 1039 (E.D.N.Y.) (<HOLDING>), aff'd mem., 986 F.2d 500 (2d Cir.1992)).
holding prosecutors statement to jury on summation that trial court had previously found defendants two confessions voluntary constituted reversible error even though trial court gave hampton charge because it failed to instruct jury to disregard prosecutors statement holding that failure to object to prosecutors comment on defendants failure to testify preserved nothing for appellate review holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense holding that counsels failure to object to the prosecutors summation represented his tactical decision to avoid underscoring the prosecutors statements so as to draw the jurys attention to them holding that state prosecutors agreements with defendant not binding on federal prosecutors