Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): refer to the defendant’s failure to testify. See State v. Clark, 170 W.Va. 224, 292 S.E.2d 643 (1982); State v. McClure, 163 W.Va. 33, 253 S.E.2d 555 (1979); State v. Simon, 132 W.Va. 322, 52 S.E.2d 725 (1949). However, those cases involved isolated remarks that certain evidence was uneontra-dieted, unlike the argument here which repeatedly emphasized the absence of refutation by the defense. Further, the prosecutor’s statements that no one had denied that appellant sold the drugs amounted to an impermissible comment on the appellant’s failure to testify, since appellant was the only one who could have denied it. 172 W.Va. at 134, 304 S.E.2d at 39; see also U.S. v. Cotnam, 88 F.3d 487, 497 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, Cotnam v. U.S., 519 U.S. 942, 117 S.Ct. 326, 136 L.Ed.2d 240 (<HOLDING>); Mannarino v. State, 869 So.2d 650 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the states comment that nobody testified he wasnt the guy was an impermissible comment on appellants right to remain silent in a case in which the only individual who could have contradicted the states evidence was the appellant (B) holding that the prosecutors reference to the nonexistence of mitigating evidence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify (C) holding that a prosecutor may comment on the absence of evidence so long as there is sufficient evidence to support the prosecutors version of events (D) holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify (E) holding that prosecutors comment that regarding uncontradieted undenied unrebutted or undisputed evidence is considered violative of fifth amendment rights if only person who could have contradicted denied rebutted or disputed the evidence was the defendant himself
Output (English): holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify