prosecutor appealed to sympathy for the victim due to her mental and physical deficiencies, argued that Brinson exploited her vulnerabilities to fund his own crack addiction, and argued that Brinson in fact caused Graham’s crack addiction, a fact wholly unsupported by the evidence. We conclude that when the properly preserved comments are combined with the unobjeeted-to acts of prose-cutorial overreaching, “the integrity of the judicial process has been compromised and the resulting convictions and sentences irreparably tainted.” Ruiz, 743 So.2d at 7. Accordingly, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Brinson’s motion for mistrial, and a new trial is required. See D Ambrosio v. State, 736 So.2d 44, 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Counsel are entitled to wide DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). We remind counsel that unprofes-sionalism not
holding that the prosecutors closing argument effectively served as an election of the proof upon which the state wished to proceed holding that the prosecutors repeated comments that the defendant could have denied knowledge of the drugs or rebutted the trafficking charge by testifying were so prejudicial as to constitute plain error recognizing that a lawyers comments during closing argument may explain away the alleged prejudicial effect of the opposing parties closing argument comments holding that the prosecutors comments during closing argument collectively rise to the level of being so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial  quoting state v murray 443 so2d 955 956 fla1984 holding that a fleeting reference within the context of an entire closing argument is not prejudicial citing numerous sources of authority