Take a look at United States v. Magnon, in which NMCCA finds that a prosecutors closing argument on the merits was:
The trial counsel’s argument was inartful; it was not a model of how a trial counsel should close his case; and it was improper. While portions of his argument might have been subject to various interpretations, when viewed in their entirety, the argument amounted to prosecutorial misconduct.
Inartful? And apparently he/she didn’t think about it in advance, as litigators are encouraged to do. We read the various school trial practice blurbs and guides. Apparently the TC winged it. If he/she didn’t wing it, then he/she thought about it ahead of time. So, how could it not have been deliberate?
Once again it’s OK, because the military judge was “engaged” and gave curative instructions. Another case where the government gets away with it. When you throw a skunk in the jury box, and ask the jury not to smell it the accused gets skunked, because the smell doesn’t stick. And the lesson to prosecutors is to keep doing it so long as the judge “cures” the error.
A TC mantra, ‘no worries, the CCA will take care of it.’