With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of highly questionable credibility, and the circumstantial evidence was far less convincing than the Marshall circumstantial evidence. Hands’s case turned entirely upon which biased witnesses the jury chose to believe. Evidence that tended to erode Hands’s credibility and to prejudice the jury against him, therefore, could have had a substantial — perhaps overpowering — impact on the jury’s deliberations. See United States v. Crutchfield, 26 F.3d 1098, 1103 (11th Cir.1994) (reversing conviction on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct where “[t]he prejudicial effect of [the] misconduct cannot be disputed, as this case turned largely on the jury’s credibility determinations of the several witnesses who testified”); see also United States v. Sanchez, 176 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Watson, 171 F.3d 695, 700-01

A: holding that in light of defendants attack on credibility of states witnesses prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument when he implied states witnesses were credible
B: holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial
C: holding that the cumulative effect of several incidents of prosecutorial misconduct that undercut defendants credibility was not harmless error noting that defendant to go free needed to persuade jury that he was credible and that the prosecution witnesses who testified in exchange for leniency were not
D: holding that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt
C.