Opinion ID: 2723829
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the prosecutor misstated the evi-

Text: dence; (2) whether the remark implicated a specific right; (3) whether the defendant invited the remark; (4) whether the district court pro- vided (and the efficacy of) a curative instruction; (5) whether the defendant had an opportunity to rebut the remark; and (6) the weight of the evidence against the defendant. United States v. Clark, 535 F.3d 571, 580–81 (7th Cir. 2008). Most of these considerations weigh against a finding of prejudice. First, the prosecutor did not misstate the evidence. If there was an error at all, Dazey invited it by misspeaking, and again none Nos. 12-3819, 12-3833 & 12-3867 23 of the defendants objected during the prosecutor’s rebuttal. As such, any lack of opportunity to take corrective action falls on the defendants. Finally, the government’s evidence was very strong. It’s highly implausible that this single, passing remark during the prosecutor’s rebuttal affected the jury’s verdict. Finding prejudice on plain-error review requires that the outcome of the trial probably would have been different without the prosecutor’s remark. That standard is not remotely satisfied here.