In what circumstances will a federal judge strike down a defense counsel's argument that the reasonable doubt standard was flawed?

Again assuming the error complained of constituted federal constitutional error, in our view, the assumed error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. (Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18.) First, we are not convinced that the jury was misled into misapprehending the reasonable doubt standard. In our view, the court's admonishment before defense counsel's summation that his objection to the prosecutor's remarks was well taken, and its reinstruction on reasonable doubt, more than adequately dispelled any inference to be drawn from the prosecutor's argument that diluted the reasonable doubt standard. Furthermore, the court reinforced the primacy of its instructions over the attorneys' statements at least twice during final arguments.

Page 16