the death penalty more than any other defendant, did not emphasize his position of power, did not compare Hall to infamous mass-murders, and did not harangue the jury with an inflammatory appeal to the jurors’ personal fears. The prosecutor properly argued Hall’s case met all six aggravating factors warranting a sentence of death. Third, the prosecutor commented the victim did not have a lawyer to represent her, or a jury to decide her fate and before whom to plead for mercy. Prosecu-torial comments made during closing argument related to a defendant exercising his constitutional rights may violate due process. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974); see, e.g., Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (<HOLDING>). Here, the prosecutor commented on the process
holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify holding a prosecutor may not comment on a defendants silence holding that the government may comment on a defendants prearrest premiranda silence as well as his postarrest pr emiranda silence holding that if comment is fairly susceptible of being construed by the jury as a comment on the defendants exercise of his or her right to remain silent it violates the defendants state constitutional right to silence whether comment was introduced in states caseinchief or for impeachment purposes holding that the state may not impeach a defendant with his postarrest or postmiranda silence holding that it is improper for prosecutor to comment on accuseds postarrest silence