Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): claiming the defense counsel is arguing “something ridiculous” is directed at defense counsel’s argument, not at defense counsel. Id. at 713. Telling the jury that they shouldn’t feel bad about taking a long time for a verdict is more akin to calling Appellant’s argument ridiculous than calling his counsel a liar. See id. Because the State’s comments attacked Appellant’s arguments, rather than his counsel personally, the argument did not strike over his shoulders. See Acosta, 411 S.W.3d at 93 (stating that State’s comments suggesting jury not be “fooled” by defense’s “good lawyering” and that argument was “just words from the defense attorney’s mouth,” attacked defense counsel’s arguments, not defense counsel personally); Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921, 925 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (<HOLDING>). Because the argument did not strike over the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that state did not comment upon defendants failure to testify when it questioned during closing arguments why defendant never gave police the murder weapon because the comment was a valid attack on the credibility of the defendants claim that the homicide was justified (B) holding a prosecutors comments indicating his personal belief in the states witnesses was a fair reply to defense counsels attack on the veracity of the states witnesses (C) holding that states comment that defense was arguing that hogwash that youve heard was states opinion of defenses arguments not an attack on counsels personal integrity (D) holding comment that was heard out of context and not necessarily related to employment of plaintiff was not evidence of discrimination (E) 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
Output (English): 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