In what circumstances will a federal prosecutor be held liable for failing to provide a reasonable burden of proof?

In the instant case, the prosecutor's challenged statements are substantially similar to the prosecutor's arguments in Centeno. Here, the prosecutor "did not simply urge the jury to '"accept the reasonable and reject the unreasonable"' in evaluating the evidence before it." Instead, the prosecutor repeatedly stated during her rebuttal argument that the standard and the People's burden of proof was "reasonable." Such arguments substantially diluted the People's burden by suggesting to the jurors that they could find defendant guilty simply if they believed it was reasonable that he committed the crime, rather than requiring them to be convinced that the prosecution had proven all necessary facts beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Centeno, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 673.)

Although, viewed in the context of the whole argument, we do not conclude that the various misstatements constituted a pattern of conduct so egregious as to violate defendant's federal due process rights, we do note that the instances of erroneous statements were not isolated or brief and were deceptive. (Compare People v. Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 818 [finding "the prosecutor committed constant and egregious misconduct" during both the guilt and penalty phases of the defendant's trial and that the combined prejudicial effect of the misconduct and other errors violated the defendant's right to a fair trial].)

E. The Errors Were Not Harmless