—issue before us were whether the trial court erred by permitting the jury to consider the description for its truth, ie, despite the court's own expressed recognition that it was inadmissible hearsay, we might agree with Walker that "the appropriate standard of review is harmless error and not plain error" because then "[t] he purpose of the requirement of timely exceptions to …

"If so, the court must, viewing the remarks in context, consider 1) the gravity of the impropriety, 2) its relationship to the issue of guilt, 3) the effect of any corrective action by the trial judge, and 4) the strength of the government's case."

"In making its case to the jury, the government is not required to deliver a dispassionate presentation of sterile facts. The gritty reality of the crime, including its human toll, is relevant to the jury's consideration

—posing the inquiry as "[whether] there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have had a reasonable doubt as to appellant's guilt, and, thus, that the outcome of his trial would have been different

"In evaluating counsel's performance, the reviewing court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct fell within a wide range of reasonable professional assistance

Second, a defendant's constitutional guarantee of a competently prepared defense requires more than a defense that can be "salvage [d]... with the benefit of `tactics as disclosed by hindsight.'"

Moreover, there is no indication that the size of the photographs or the manner in which the prosecutor used them at trial was intended to, or did, inflame the jury.

—of jurors who, because of any September 11, 2001-related sentiments, might, upon learning the details of the case, render a verdict based on an emotional response to the fact that appellant's protest action related to the conduct of government affairs in the wake of the events of that date.

—and in such cases, the government is "not required to deliver a dispassionate presentation of sterile facts."

—noting that counsel had been warned that asking a question would open the door to prejudicial government evidence