Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): entire record “and consider the probable effect that the prosecution’s comments had on the jury’s ability to judge the evidence fairly.” Turk, 870 F.2d at 1308 (citing United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 12, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1044, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)); see also United States v. O’Connell, 841 F.2d 1408, 1428 (8th Cir.1988) (explaining that prosecutorial misconduct must be evaluated in context of the entire trial record). Any comments that the prosecutor made about defendant’s lawyer injecting the issue of “consciousness of wrongdoing” into the case, when reviewed in the context of the record as a whole, “did not substantially influence the jury decision or infect the trial with unfairness. The error, if any, was harmless.” Turk, 870 F.2d at 1309; see also O’Connell, 841 F.2d at 1428-29 (<HOLDING>). Finally, defendant argues that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that any harm resulting from personal attacks that the prosecutor made on defense counsel was fully outweighed by the properly admitted evidence which provided ample and convincing proof of defendants guilt (B) holding that any prejudice resulting from misstatements of law made by the prosecutor during closing was cured by the trial courts proper instruction on the applicable law (C) holding that the trial courts actions in sustaining the defendants objections were sufficient to remedy any possible harm resulting from the mere asking of the three questions by the prosecutor (D) holding that any prejudice resulting from a misstatement of the law by the prosecutor was cured by trial courts proper instruction on applicable law (E) holding that it was permissible for prosecutor to comment on the general failure of the defense to produce any evidence
Output (English): holding that the trial courts actions in sustaining the defendants objections were sufficient to remedy any possible harm resulting from the mere asking of the three questions by the prosecutor