ftlMWS ckifij MfyCuloi Opim&if)
$ VwVmj -for M Woj UirWw todibili^ m \m\4 mpws/VVnWbd fip^ 1mtm mm
■«4iwfie OounSe 'ivauiYi^t.
3* WWW 4W personal Dpmio 1
4W 5iaVs Uiikess Ww Vs,1m
loUW*(^ad^(^ ss v
Cbtmftl fir -fcW 'k 'k
2,i", mMim « p< ji "ml kvk&
n
a cla\^ m i
wMWf otruj cilltjjy) prejudice fiw 4b prftCliV^ r^rbMM
\uri| WS-lf^bl&AS, -i n
W d«d a V'f Vial wW -N W &*4 ^ j* w #i'
(pt WWbw 4W pbvtow
Judieiinl £ esse^ll 1j ^llM^a 9
imrnw 4gs+ablw m nm'£ DOl£
pperWH fir Ml ^ Mr Uijtrfwi «P a Cln.ianort WHeW a
Cjs wWW pbiViorkd was przmdd
4hc fourth *a
an &
llnd«r
»t
I!

4* ciewnSim-U \k nMwte of ft iwa fide mem&j or olkf otfaordimry
14elau.
j i' WVl«4Wr^ke Iasi- rwswiecl CwrVs flatter |i awilwwus & i> Irik-lber /■/ denied
' v Pe-WiWs Claims of ineffeckv? asiiibn& $Counsel<ke h a pvoedmldefault-
Or d«ned m 4W mnfs.fl'r X

Whether the prosecutor's remarks during rebuttal of injecting personal opinion and vouching for the credibility of a witness