such statements. To sufficiently counter the prejudice, the Defendant argues that the court should have given the jury a curative instruction on the issue of bias and prejudice following the improper remarks made by the prosecutor. The Defendant also accuses the prosecutor of misconduct during closing argument by repeated finger pointing, and of characterizing the Defendant as a liar and defense counsel as a bad person who twists the truth and treats the jurors as though they are stupid. The Defendant also asserts that the prosecutor made other negative remarks about defense counsel which were imputed to the Defendant. The alleged misconduct by the prosecution must be viewed in the context of the entire trial in determining its prejudicial effect. See U.S. v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985) (<HOLDING>); accord Government v. Charleswell, 24 F.3d
holding that inappropriate prosecutorial comments standing alone would not justify reviewing court in reversing criminal conviction obtained in otherwise fair proceeding remarks must be examined within context of trial to determine whether prosecutors behavior amounted to prejudicial error holding that in context of criminal trial defendants right to remain silent cannot be compromised by prosecutorial comments that cast aspersions on its exercise holding that plain error is the appropriate standard of review when a defendant objects to a prosecutors comments at trial does not move for a mistrial and then on appeal argues that the comments deprived him of a fair trial holding that before an error can be held harmless the reviewing court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the defendants conviction holding that in order to raise prejudicial comments of trial court on appeal defendant must object to comments when made and move for a mistrial