kind of your job, right? DEFENDANT: Yes.... PROSECUTOR: I don’t want you to try to suggest to the jury that there’s this other stuff no one is talking about. Id. at 496. This court, addressing Hunt’s argument that the comment of the prosecutor amounted to misconduct, held that the comment was invited by and responsive to defendant’s testimony. Read in context, it is clear that the prosecutor’s remarks were not intended to shift the burden of proof or otherwise mislead the jury or prejudice the defendant. They were intended simply to dispel the notion, suggested by defendant, that the government had improperly withheld information. The remarks were not improper and do not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. Id. at 497; see also United States v. Clark, 982 F.2d 965, 969 (6th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). As in the cases cited above, the prosecutor’s
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 the plaintiff had the burden of establishing that he properly served an agent of the defendant holding where defense counsel argued that the prosecution had not presented the testimony of a law enforcement agent because it would have been favorable to the accused the prosecutor properly argued in rebuttal that clark could have called the agent as a witness on his own holding that trial counsel was not deficient in the presentation of defendants life history during the penalty phase because the jury was aware of most aspects of the defendants life that the defendant argued should have been presented holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes