In what circumstances have the courts found that statements made by a prosecutor at a federal criminal trial were not egregious enough to invalidate a defendant's conviction?

In sum, we cannot conclude the prosecutor's statements were '""so egregious""' that they infected the trial with such unfairness that defendant's conviction resulted in a denial of due process. (People v. Gionis, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 1214.) Moreover, we

Page 22

conclude that none of the charged instances amount to misconduct and, if one or more of the prosecutor's statements was arguably misconduct, it was harmless in light of the evidence of defendant's guilt. (People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 173.) None of the statements together or alone resulted in an unfair violation of either defendant's state of federal constitutional rights.