Prosecutor's Remarks Misleading the Jury

In United States v. Mitchell, 1 F.3d 235, 240 (4th Cir.1993), the court considered several factors when evaluating whether there was prejudicial plain error at the trial level. Those factors included: (1) the degree to which the prosecutor's remarks have a tendency to mislead the jury and prejudice the accused; (2) whether the remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) the strength of competent proof to establish guilt, absent the remarks; (4) whether the comments were deliberately placed before the jury to divert attention to extraneous matters; (5) the presence or absence of a limiting instruction; (6) whether there was a proper purpose for introducing the conviction; (7) whether the conviction was improperly emphasized; (8) whether the conviction was used as substantive evidence of guilt; (9) whether the error was invited by defense counsel; (10) whether the failure to object could have been the result of tactical decisions; (11) whether, in light of all the evidence, the error was harmless. Mitchell, 1 F.3d at 241-42 (citing and quoting United States v. Harrison, 716 F.2d 1050, 1052 (4th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 972, 104 S. Ct. 2345, 80 L. Ed. 2d 819 (1984)); United States v. Miranda, 593 F.2d 590, 594 (5th Cir. 1979)).