the witnesses credibility here's the information that the jury had for them before closing argument they knew both of these co defendants had lengthy criminal records they knew they were both in a tough position as they were both initially charged with murder in the first degree they were self proclaimed drug addicts and they couldn't get their story straight they consider themselves partners every  to the cops when he first arrested that up and wasn't wearing a mask at the time of the shooting but the other witness that was in the home at the time of the shooting testified that both of the people who entered the home suddenly up and wasn't wearing a mask and then on redirect you can remember that he thinks he was that's what the jury had before them for a closing argument now in their closing argument the prosecutor bolstered the witnesses credibility she gave him a big boost she put her they were not your honor our position would be that that shouldn't matter here it shouldn't matter because this is an issue of procedural or not answering whether or not it was waived why there was no objection i don't know the answer to then the question becomes whether the one statement is enough to tip the verdict correct that we would say that that one statement alone is enough the case was so close if you look at it the only thing that the jury had where these statements by these so called clam triads robbers people who had a lot of time they had to say that one statement and if you look at it in the context of the closing argument and where it cam was so critical that this court's opinion discussed is a similar situation in which the prosecution was attempting to explain away a government deal united states versus mccoy discusses that it's inappropriate in that context of a close trial suggests to the jury that there is extensive evidence not before them that supports testimony that's what we have here she says if you don't like the field bargain hold it against me hold it against my office but if you believe them you have to convict a reasonable jury would see that and think the prosecutor knows something i don't see she's the expert she has tools that are supposed to that we don't have we're going to believe or she takes that factor away from the jury this do they have to weigh the improper argument it was a fallacy she did say i think they're telling the truth but she then said and i think you will find they are telling the truth awful if you look at the at the single statement in isolation it's a fallacy but if you look at it in the context of the entire trial her entire argument the court's instructions to the jury that they are the sole credit sole determiner of credibility that arguments are not  supervising course make sure that this doesn't happen i don't think it's possible to make sure that it never happens or there's one there's one way isn't there there there is but the u s supreme court and the case cited by petitioners very young united states versus john said the remedy is not to reverse the conviction it's to exercise to revise a very powerful but i must remind the court with all due respect you do not exercise court has repeatedly said you have to look at the entire argument of the entire trial clued in the court's instructions to the jury and the other statements made by the prosecutor the prosecutor told the jury look at the evidence and determine whether they're telling the truth look at the other evidence this other evidence shows you are telling the truth she said you determine whether they are telling the truth the court said you determine whether they're telling the jury that they absolutely must disregard that kind of statement but neither of those were done here right why they were done i don't know your honor but i don't think that that should be the focus of the fact that there was an objection should equal concern on the defense side of things to make sure that they don't come back and that's to be aggressive on behalf of your client and apparently that was not done here right well why that wasn't done i don't know perhaps the difficulty with saying the only remedy is to reverse that would be interesting would it not override our general principle that there can be constitutional error but in many cases a constitutional  if it's found prejudicial we affirm isn't that basically the set up that we have great under that's right so i'm not sure why reversal would be the only remedy here well our position would be that in this case it