Opinion ID: 181032
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Isolated v. Extensive

Text: The second factor requires this court to assess the pervasiveness of the improper remarks; that is, this court must determine whether the remarks were isolated or extensive. If a prosecutor's comments were simply isolated remarks made during the course of a long trial, then the error caused by such misconduct may be harmless. Carter, 236 F.3d at 788 (citing United States v. Leon, 534 F.2d 667, 679 (6th Cir.1976)). In this case, it is tempting to describe the remarks as isolated, as they were confined to a single portion of the trial. Indeed, when the remarks are viewedas they must beagainst the backdrop of the trial as a whole, they are certainly fairly localized. See Macias v. Makowski, 291 F.3d 447, 453 (6th Cir.2002) (The prosecutor's statement took place during rebuttal closing argument, and Macias does not contend that the prosecutor acted inappropriately at any other point during the trial. Because the comments were isolated, this factor does not weigh in Macias's favor.); Cobleigh, 75 F.3d at 247 (holding that there was no prosecutorial misconduct where the defendants complained of a few unrelated statements and events from an eight-defendant trial that lasted one month and involved the testimony of dozens of witnesses and the presentation of more than 200 exhibits). However, the fact that the remarks were confined to the rebuttal argument does not mean that they are sufficiently isolated to merit a finding of harmlessness. In some instances, a single forbidden comment is sufficient to poison the entire trial. See United States v. Smith, 500 F.2d 293, 297 (6th Cir.1974) ([E]ven a single misstep on the part of the prosecutor may be so destructive of the right of the defendant to a fair trial that reversal must follow. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Ultimately, we think the remarks, though confined to the rebuttal argument, were numerous enough to escape categorization as isolated. But, at the same time, the remarks were not plentiful enough to merit a finding that they were pervasive. Thus, the second factor is a wash.