With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a prosecutor’s closing argument is not limited to a “flat, robotic recitation[] of ‘just the facts.’” Diaz v. State, 797 So.2d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). To the contrary, a prosecutor may robustly and vigorously argue the truthfulness of a witness whose credibility is under attack. As we wrote in Diaz, [w]e have great confidence in the common sense of jurors to decide cases on the law and facts without being unduly swayed by the lawyers’ oratory. A prosecutor does not violate her obligation to seek justice by arguing the state’s case with passion and conviction. Id. III. Code of Silence Testimony In his second argument, Jackson contends that the trial court abused its discre tion in admitting testimony from Detectives Myers and Hardiman on the general reluctance of resi p.2002) (<HOLDING>); Powell v. State, 714 N.E.2d 624, 629

A: holding the excluded testimony was relevant to whether a signature was that of a deceased party and since a statement regarding the issue was the only testimony that could be given by the witness no offer to prove was necessary because the substance of the evidence was apparent from the context of the question asked
B: holding that witnessesthe victim and chief investigator could offer testimony on an inmate code of silence and that once testified to the prosecutor could argue the matter since such testimony was relevant to explain why the victim and other inmates had given conflicting statements as to who had committed the assault
C: holding that case involving evidence such as eyewitness testimony placing the defendant at the scene acknowledgment by the defendant of a dispute with the victim and theft of the victims purse and dna evidence suggesting that the defendant had engaged in sexual relations with the victim could not be deemed entirely circumstantial
D: holding that before a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of the victims character for violence there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim was the first aggressor and that once the defendant testified that he was attacked and cut by the victim without provocation before using the victims utility tool to stab the victim the defendant was clearly entitled to question the victim about past acts of violence reflected in court documents from the state of oregon
B.