context: Finally, he admonished the jury to find the defendant guilty of those crimes. The remark, "the community enforces the law, you represent the community, you decide," was not improper in this context.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 414 F.3d 954, 960
citation_a.parenthetical: reasoning even if the district court failed to sustain an objection to the single improper use of a word, defendants' substantial rights would not have been so affected as to deprive them of a fair trial
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Lopez, 414 F.3d 954, 960 (8th Cir.2005) (reasoning even if the district court failed to sustain an objection to the single improper use of a word, defendants’ substantial rights would not have been so affected as to deprive them of a fair trial).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 547 F.2d 1030, 1036-37
citation_b.parenthetical: finding a plea to the jury to be the conscience of the community is not impermissible unless it is calculated to inflame, and an appeal to the jury to be the "public's last shield" did not "exceed permissible bounds of advocacy"
citation_b.sentence: United States v. Lewis, 547 F.2d 1030, 1036-37 (8th Cir.1976) (finding a plea to the jury to be the conscience of the community is not impermissible unless it is calculated to inflame, and an appeal to the jury to be the “public’s last shield” did not “exceed permissible bounds of advocacy”). This single remark by the prosecutor did not prejudice Levering’s right to a fair trial.