With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of innocence disappears."). 133 Thus, as a jury evaluates the evidence against a defendant, it must continue to presume him or her innocent until it concludes that the evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Delo v. Lashley, 507 U.S. 272, 278, 113 S.Ct. 1222, 122 L.Ed.2d 620 (1993) ("The presumption [of innocence] operates at the guilt phase of a trial to remind the jury that the State has the burden of establishing every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt."). 34 The prosecutor's comment here, that the evidence against defendant itself was sufficient to weaken or eliminate the presumption of innocence, wrongly suggested that the jury need not presume defendant innocent as it deliberated upon that evidence. See McBride, 228 P.3d at 223-24 (<HOLDING>); Mahorney v. Wallman, 917 F.2d 469, 471 (10th

A: holding that the prosecutors reference to the nonexistence of mitigating evidence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify
B: recognizing the stated rule but finding that the prosecutors comment did not imply to the jury that he had personal knowledge of facts not presented to them indicating the defendants guilt
C: holding that the prosecutors comment that the defendant sits here in front of the jury a guilty man was erroneous and should not be repeated in future cases
D: holding that prosecutors statement that the guilty man flees but the righteous man stands bold as a lion was not an improper comment on defendants failure to come forward because statements about a defendants flight are proper as circumstantial evidence of guilt
C.