had finished its closing argument to raise it. We agree with the government that Cogswell did not object to the statement regarding his taking drugs to a party for someone else. The record shows that Cogswell’s objection made reference only to the statement regarding who lived at the apartment. Thus, his challenge to the former statement is subject to plain-error review. However, contrary to the government’s assertions, Cogswell timely objected to the statement regarding who lived in the apartment. Although he did not object to it immediately after the statement was made, we find that his objection, made at the end of the prosecution’s closing argument, was sufficiently timely to preserve the issue for appeal. See United States v. Mandelbaum, 803 F.2d 42, 44 n. 1 (1st Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we review de novo whether this
holding that defense counsel opened the door to the states rebuttal remarks when defense counsel raised the issue in his closing argument holding that the defendants objection was untimely when he waited until the end of the prosecutors closing argument to raise it holding that the prosecutor is not required to provide the defense with the names of rebuttal witnesses because until the defense case has been presented the state cannot know of witnesses needed for rebuttal holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding that the objection had been sufficiently timely when the defense waited until the governments rebuttal to object to a statement made during the governments closing statement