How have the courts interpreted the government's rebuttal summation in a civil case?

First, we disagree that the government's rebuttal summation deprived the Christians and Quinn of a fair trial. We reverse a conviction for claims of prosecutorial misconduct on the grounds asserted here only upon a showing "that the remarks, taken in the context of the entire trial, resulted in substantial prejudice." United States v. Perez, 144 F.3d 204, 210 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). "The law recognizes that summationsand particularly rebuttal summationsare not detached expositions with every word carefully constructed before the event. Precisely because such arguments frequently require improvisation, courts will not lightly infer that every remark is intended to carry its most dangerous meaning." United States v. Aquart, 912 F.3d 1, 27 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks, ellipsis, and alterations omitted).