What is the impact of improper comments made by a prosecutor in his closing rebuttal to a jury trial?

The prosecutor's inflammatory remarks were also prominent in the context of the entire trial. The prosecutor repeated the statements throughout the closing rebuttal, and they were among the last words the jurors heard before they were sent to deliberate. The presentation of improper material at the end of trial magnifie[s] its prejudicial effect because it is freshest in the mind of the jury when [it] retire[s] to deliberate. Crotts v. Smith, 73 F.3d 861, 867 (9th Cir.1996) (internal citation

[788 F.3d 1123]

and quotation marks omitted), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir.2000) ; see also Sanchez, 659 F.3d at 1261 (observing that improper prosecutorial comment in a closing rebuttal was particularly problematic because it was the last argument the jury heard before going to the jury room to deliberate, thus increas[ing] the risk that the inflammatory statement would improperly influence the jurors).

3. The comments were not a reasonable inference from the record.