v. State, 274 Md. 536, 542-43, 336 A.2d 113 (1975) (“[I]t is improper to conclude that a decision, constitutionally protected, not to plead guilty and in doing so to require the State to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is a factor which ought to, in any way, influence the sentencing judge to the detriment of the accused”) (footnote omitted). Our decision concluding that the remark in this case was improper is supported by a number of out-of-state authorities. See United States v. Ochoa-Zarate, 540 F.3d 613, 618-19 (7th Cir.2008) (concluding that new trial was not required where prosecutor commented on defendant’s exercise of his right to jury trial because any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); Burns v. Gammon, 260 F.3d 892, 896 (8th Cir.Mo. 2001) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted); People v. Rodgers, 756
recognizing that a criminal defendants right to a fair trial is fundamental holding that the prosecutors improper remarks referring to the defendants exercise of his constitutional right to a trial by jury was not plain error requiring reversal holding that reversal required where trial court did not attach portions of the transcripts to refute claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to improper closing argument holding trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to improper argument about defendants exercise of his right to a jury trial and stating that the prosecution cannot use the defendants exercise of specific fundamental constitutional guarantees against him at trial holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel