Robert Sawyer appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, and its concomitant entry of an order rescinding Sawyer’s stay of execution. On appeal, Sawyer argues that his conviction for first degree murder should be reversed both because he was denied effective assistance of counsel and because the state trial court, by failing to comply with a state law requiring that counsel assigned in a capital case must have been admitted to the bar for at least five years, violated Sawyer’s constitutional due pro*585cess and equal protection rights. In addition, Sawyer argues that the prosecutor’s closing argument in the sentencing phase of his trial violated the eighth amendment by erroneously misleading the jurors concerning their role as the final arbiters of death. As we agree with the district court that Sawyer’s challenges to his conviction and sentence do not warrant habeas relief, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
I.
Robert Sawyer (“Sawyer”) is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. Sawyer and Charles Lane (“Lane”) were charged with first degree murder for the gruesome slaying of Frances Arwood.1 Both were ultimately tried separately. Sawyer was represented at trial by his *586court-appointed attorney, James Weidner (“Weidner”). Sawyer was originally represented by Wiley Beevers (“Beevers”). It was Beevers who had initially brought Weidner into the case by asking him to assist as co-counsel. Beevers subsequently withdrew from the case when Sawyer refused to accept a plea bargain offered by the prosecutor and Weidner was left as sole counsel. Upon receiving his appointment, Weidner informed the trial court that he was not a “death-qualified” attorney because he lacked five years experience as required for appointed counsel in capital cases by article 512 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure.2 The trial court told Weidner to get an experienced counsel to “sit” with him. Weidner managed to secure some assistance from several other attorneys, but no “death-qualified” attorney was ever appointed as co-counsel. Neither party disputes the fact that the terms of article 512 were not complied with. Sawyer was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death by a jury on September 19, 1980.
His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court. See State v. Sawyer, 422 So.2d 95 (La. 1982). Sawyer’s petition for a writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Supreme Court was granted and the case was remanded with instructions for the Louisiana Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling in light of Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983). See Sawyer v. Louisiana, 463 U.S. 1223, 103 S.Ct. 3567, 77 L.Ed.2d 1407 (1983). On remand, the Louisiana Supreme Court again affirmed the death sentence, see Sawyer v. Louisiana, 442 So.2d 1136 (La. 1983), and Sawyer’s subsequent petition for writ of certiorari was denied, see Sawyer v. Louisiana, 466 U.S. 931, 104 S.Ct. 1719, 80 L.Ed.2d 191 (1984). At this point, Sawyer sought state habeas relief which was ultimately unsuccessful. See Sawyer v. Mag-gio, 479 So.2d 360 (La.1985); Sawyer v. Maggio, 480 So.2d 313 (La.1985).
Having exhausted his state remedies, Sawyer filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In his petition, Sawyer argued, among other things, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the state trial court’s failure to comply with article 512 violated his due process and equal protection rights. Moreover, Sawyer claimed that the prosecutor’s closing argument in the sentencing phase of his trial erroneously misled the jury as to their role as the final arbiters of death and, therefore, violated the eighth amendment. After granting Sawyer a stay of execution, the district court assigned Sawyer’s case to a magistrate for a hearing. On September 9,1986, the magistrate submitted his proposed findings and recommended to the district court that Sawyer’s petition be denied and the stay of execution be vacated. With respect to Sawyer’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the magistrate concluded that Sawyer had failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by any of Weidner’s allegedly deficient actions as counsel. As to the state trial court’s non-compliance with article 512, the magistrate began by noting that the state trial judge, after the evidentiary hearing, concluded that the violation is not fatal to a capital conviction when the defendant actually received effective assistance of counsel. The magistrate, therefore, refused to reach the issue of whether Sawyer’s due process and equal protection rights were actually violated “since any alleged breach of those rights was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and, consequently, does not raise a federal constitutional question. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 [, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705] (1967).” Finally, the magistrate concluded that the prosecutor’s remarks in his closing argument during the penalty phase were *587distinguishable from those condemned in Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), as viola-tive of the eighth amendment. Moreover, after concluding that “[r]eference to possible appellate review should not result, in all cases, in an automatic reversal of a death penalty,” the magistrate went on to conclude that since “there is no reasonable probability, that but for the prosecutor’s alleged professional errors, the recommendation of the jury would have been different,” resentencing would be inappropriate.
On April 8,1987, the district court issued its ruling adopting the magistrate’s findings and recommendations in an order incorporating several amendments to the magistrate’s opinion.3 The district court also examined, in greater detail, the question of whether Chapman’s harmless error analysis applies to the alleged constitutional violations in the instant case. The district court concluded that a Chapman analysis was appropriate since the state trial court’s failure to appoint counsel with five years experience could not be classified as a violation of constitutional rights “so basic to a fair trial” as to preclude the harmless error inquiry. The district court found no merit in Sawyer’s assertion that harmless error analysis can never be applied to due process or equal protection errors. Finally, the district court found that the state trial court’s appointment of counsel with less than five years experience in the instant case was indeed harmless since the evidence against Sawyer was so overwhelming as to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sawyer filed timely notice of appeal and was granted a certificate of probable cause to appeal and a stay of execution pending appeal. We have jurisdiction under Title 28, United States Code, section 2253.
II.
On appeal, Sawyer raises three challenges to his confinement and sentence. First, Sawyer argues that he was accorded ineffective assistance by his “inexperienced appointed counsel, who was not lawfully qualified to represent a capital defendant,” in violation of the sixth amendment. Next, Sawyer argues that the state trial court’s failure to comply with article 512 violated Sawyer’s constitutional due process and equal protection rights. He contends that the district court erred in applying a harmless error analysis to his claims for they are related to the integrity of the trial process itself and, as such, are not proper subjects for a Chapman inquiry. Finally, Sawyer contends that certain improper remarks by the prosecutor in closing arguments at the sentencing phase of Sawyer’s trial erroneously misled the jury as to their role in the death penalty determination and, therefore, violated the eighth amendment as interpreted in Caldwell. Sawyer also takes issue with the district court’s imposition of a prejudice requirement on his Caldwell violation claims. We will consider each of these arguments in turn.4
*588III.
A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Sawyer points to a number of alleged deficiencies in Weidner’s performance at trial as support for his allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Sawyer notes that Weidner: (1) failed to ask the jurors about their attitudes towards the death penalty during voir dire; (2) objected to the jury’s learning of the mandatory life imprisonment penalty for second degree murder, as well as the penalty for manslaughter at the guilt phase; (3) failed to object to several inadmissible, inflammatory remarks by the prosecutor; (4) produced no defense experts on the subjects of intoxication and toxic psychosis even though he had chosen them as his chief defenses to negate the specific intent required for first degree murder; (5) failed to make a closing argument at the guilt phase of trial; and (6) failed to prepare a competent penalty phase presentation.
Sawyer’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be evaluated under the two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The test requires first, “a showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment,” and second, a showing that the deficient performance so prejudiced the defense that the defendant was deprived of a fair and reliable trial. Uresti v. Lynaugh, 821 F.2d 1099, 1101 (5th Cir.1987) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064). The burden that Strickland imposes on a defendant is severe. Procter v. Butler, 831 F.2d 1251, 1255 (5th Cir.1987). In order to satisfy the deficiency prong of the Strickland test, for example, the defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness as measured by prevailing professional standards. Martin v. McCotter, 796 F.2d 813, 816 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 935, 93 L.Ed.2d 985 (1987). Given the almost infinite variety of possible trial techniques and tactics available to counsel, we must be careful not to second guess legitimate strategic choices which may now, under the distorting light of hindsight, seem ill-advised and unreasonable. We have stressed that, “great deference is given to counsel, ‘strongly presuming that counsel has exercised reasonable professional judgment.’ ” Martin, 796 F.2d at 816 (quoting Lockhart v. McCotter, 782 F.2d 1275, 1279 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 873, 93 L.Ed.2d 827 (1987)).
In evaluating whether counsel’s alleged errors prejudiced the defense, “[i]t is not enough for the defendant to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693, 104 S.Ct. at 2067. Rather, the defendant must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. “It is not our role to assume the existence of prejudice.” Czere v. Butler, 833 F.2d 59, 64 (5th Cir.1987). On the contrary, Strickland requires that the defendant affirmatively prove prejudice. Id. Strickland also authorizes us to proceed directly to the question of prejudice. Therefore, if Sawyer fails to demonstrate prejudice, the alleged deficiencies in Weid-*589ner’s performance need not even be considered. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698-99, 104 S.Ct. at 2070; Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502 (5th Cir.1984). Since both the performance and prejudice components of the ineffectiveness inquiry-are mixed questions of law and fact, we must make an independent determination of whether the representation accorded Sawyer by counsel passed constitutional muster. Ricalday v. Procunier, 736 F.2d 203, 206 (5th Cir.1984); Trass v. Maggio, 731 F.2d 288, 292 (5th Cir.1984). With these considerations in mind, we now turn to the merits of Sawyer’s contentions.5
With respect to Sawyer’s objections to voir dire, we need not decide whether counsel’s failure to question prospective jurors about their views on the death penalty was professionally unreasonable because Sawyer has failed to demonstrate prejudice. Sawyer does not dispute the fact that the State questioned the prospective jurors on this point. Rather, Sawyer asserts that because “the actual value of the rights [counsel] so casually sacrificed cannot be measured in .concrete terms,” Strickland would excuse his failure to affirmatively demonstrate — or concretely allege — prejudice from counsel’s actions. Sawyer’s novel interpretation of Strickland is unsupported by authority and runs counter to our interpretation of that case. Sawyer also alludes to the prejudice which resulted from counsel’s failure to rehabilitate veniremen who were excused because of their views contrary to the death penalty. Sawyer fails, however, to demonstrate that rehabilitation was possible. Unsupported allegations and pleas for presumptive prejudice are not the stuff that Strickland is made of. We find no merit in Sawyer’s allegations that counsel’s voir dire performance constituted ineffective representation of counsel.
At trial, Weidner objected to the jury’s learning of the mandatory life imprisonment penalty for second degree murder, as well as the penalty for manslaughter at the guilt phase. Sawyer asserts that he was prejudiced by this objection because “[wjithout this information, the jury would never realize that a conviction for second degree murder carried a mandatory life sentence, so that a vote against first degree would both remove the possibility of a death sentence and also insure permanent incarceration.” By objecting to the jury’s receipt of this information, Sawyer argues, Weidner deprived his client of any realistic opportunity for a second degree murder conviction and a chance of avoiding the penalty phase of trial. The district court, however, concluded that Sawyer’s argument was without merit since “it was possible for the jury to recommend a sentence of life imprisonment on his conviction of first degree murder,” and because Sawyer’s “contention that the jury might have returned a verdict of manslaughter, had it *590known he could have received twenty years imprisonment, has even less support in light of the evidence.”
Once again, Sawyer has failed to affirmatively demonstrate prejudice. He has not shown a reasonable probability that, absent Weinder’s objection to the jury’s learning of lesser penalties, the jury decision would have been different. We note first that the evidence adduced at trial was more than ample to support the jury’s determination that Sawyer was guilty of first degree murder.6 Moreover, Sawyer fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty to either of the lesser offenses. Finally, as for avoiding the penalty phase of trial in hopes of securing a term of life imprisonment, Sawyer had consistently refused to accept such an offer by way of a plea bargain.7
Next, Sawyer contends — however perfunctorily — that Weidner’s failure “to object to inadmissible, inflammatory statements by the prosecutor” constituted an example of Weidner's prejudicial representation. Sawyer complains of Weidner’s failure to object “to the prosecutor’s use of facts not in evidence during voir dire, which facts were never established at trial.” Specifically, Sawyer complains of references to the use of a hammer in the commission of the crime. The district court concluded that the prosecutor’s reference to the hammer, when “viewed in perspective to the actual torture and brutality inflicted upon the victim, could have had only an inconsequential effect on the jury’s verdict.” Moreover, at trial, Weidner objected to the testimony of a state witness who alluded to the use of a hammer during the attack, and requested a mistrial. The trial court denied the request but instruct*591ed the jury that “until now there has been no testimony regarding any hammer by any other prior witness so I am going to ask you to disregard those comments and that statement by the witness and don’t let that statement prejudice Mr. Sawyer in any way.” Sawyer’s assertion, therefore, is without merit.
Sawyer’s next objection to Weidner’s performance concerns counsel’s use of expert testimony to support Sawyer’s intoxication and toxic psychosis defenses. Sawyer complains that Weidner failed to secure his own expert witnesses and instead relied on “state” experts — psychiatrists who had been appointed to a pre-trial lunacy commission charged with determining whether Sawyer was competent to stand trial — who' gave damaging testimony. Each of the psychiatrists in question examined Sawyer for approximately half an hour in connection with the competency proceeding and concluded that Sawyer understood the nature of the charges against him and could assist his attorney in his defense. Weidner was successful in eliciting testimony from them which supported the toxic psychosis defense.8 In his habeas petition, Sawyer complains that these opinions were based upon a set of hypothetical questions only, and that Weidner should have procured an expert who could have testified as to the actual effect of alcohol on Sawyer. As the district court noted, “[Sawyer] does not suggest that type of *592examination would produce the type of results he seeks or that those results would even be obtainable.” In addition, Doctor Albert DeVilliere, one of the two experts, testified both at trial and during the sanity hearing that a physician would have to have been at the scene of the crime during its commission to be in a position to render an opinion on Sawyer’s intent or the effect of toxic psychosis on that intent at the time of the crime. Finally, as the district court concluded, Sawyer has failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence that he suffered from toxic psychosis to support his claims. His assertions on this point, therefore, are without merit.
Sawyer also points to Weidner’s waiver of closing argument at the guilt phase of trial. Sawyer asserts that “[a] failure to give a closing argument constitutes a clear breakdown in the adversary process under [Strickland ] as the jury must infer that the defense counsel who waives argument has abandoned his client’s case, and has nothing to say because he believes him to be guilty.” Weidner testified during the state evidentiary hearing that his deliberate decision to dispense with closing argument was based on two separate considerations. First, having dealt with the prosecutor in other trials, Weidner knew that the prosecutor tended towards “mild” closing arguments and “saved all of his big guns” for rebuttal. Therefore, “all [Weidner] could see closing argument was going to do in the guilt phase of the trial was give [the prosecutor] a chance to come back behind [him], show them the picture again ... and just make it worse.” Second, Weidner realized the strong case the state had against Sawyer as to his guilt and felt that the best hope for salvaging anything for Sawyer was in the penalty phase, where Weidner hoped for a recommendation of life imprisonment. To further any possibility for success in the penalty phase, Weidner decided not to risk his credibility with the jury by advancing arguments that the jury might perceive as unsupportable.
The district court concluded that “[w]hile an attorney’s decision to waive closing argument might ordinarily deprive a defendant of the effective assistance of counsel, we do not find that to be the result in the case before us.” We agree that the waiver of closing argument was not prejudicial on the facts before us. Weidner believed the evidence against Sawyer to be “overwhelming.” That view seems to have been shared by all of the attorneys familiar with the case. Beevers, for example, was “convinced that there was overwhelming weight of evidence” against Sawyer and “[he] was concerned ... about the high probability of a death penalty should [Sawyer] proceed to trial.” Samuel Dalton, an attorney who testified for Sawyer at the state habeas evidentiary hearing, also recalled “that the evidence of the homicide was overwhelming.” Moreover, we note that closing argument was not needed to organize and explain the defense position. The district court concluded that, “[u]nder the circumstances, the jury could not help but to have understood the nature of Sawyer’s defense.” After a thorough review of the record, we find no error in the district court’s conclusion that the jury was fairly apprised of the nature of Sawyer’s defense during voir dire and Weidner’s opening statement, and that the testimony of defense witnesses as to aspects of the defense theory was simple and direct.
Sawyer’s assertions of prejudice are unsupported by the record. He has failed to demonstrate what counsel might have said at closing that would have a reasonable probability of changing the result of the trial and therefore, in light of Weidner’s tactical considerations and the strong evidence against Sawyer, we are unprepared to find that the waiver of closing argument here was prejudicial.
Finally, Sawyer contends that Weidner failed to prepare a competent penalty phase presentation. Specifically, Sawyer points to Weidner’s alleged failure to conduct sufficient investigation and uncover relevant mitigating evidence. Sawyer fails, however, to specify what other mitigating evidence was available or how that evidence could have affected the jury’s decision. For example, Sawyer complains that Weidner could have called other family *593witnesses who would have been available to testify about mitigating circumstances. Yet, Sawyer neither describes the substance of that potential testimony nor details how the evidence uncovered would have done more than simply duplicate the testimony of Sawyer’s sister and brother-in-law. He also complains that Weidner did not spend enough time preparing the witnesses to testify. It is clear, however, that brevity of consultation is insufficient to warrant habeas relief. Schwander, 750 F.2d at 499.
Sawyer also points to Weidner’s closing argument as an example of attorney incompetence. In that closing, Weidner reiterated several dominant themes of his case: (1) that the jury bears a great responsibility and that they should be lenient by not “killing” Sawyer; (2) that the death penalty is improper under any circumstances; and (3) that Sawyer lived through a difficult childhood, had been in a mental hospital and had been drunk during the commission of the offense. While Weidner’s closing was, as the district court noted, cursory and perfunctory, Sawyer has failed to affirmatively demonstrate prejudice. The closing was adequate to inform the jury of the defense’s position. In addition, Sawyer has not articulated how Weidner’s closing affected the jury’s decision or could have been improved. Weidner’s penalty phase presentation was imperfect but Sawyer has failed to demonstrate that it was constitutionally improper under Strickland.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that since Sawyer has failed to affirmatively demonstrate prejudice from any of Weidner’s allegedly deficient actions as counsel, Sawyer’s ineffective assistance claim must fail.
B. Equal Protection and Due Process
Sawyer claims that the state trial court’s refusal to comply with the terms of article 512 violated his rights to equal protection. We need not, and most certainly do not, reach the question of whether this violation of state law actually rose to the level of an equal protection violation. Even if Sawyer could prove an equal protection violation, that violation would still be subject to a harmless error analysis and, under such an analysis, would clearly fail.
In Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), the Supreme Court rejected the notion that errors of constitutional dimension necessarily require reversal of criminal convictions. Id. at 21-22, 87 S.Ct. at 826. Since Chapman, the Court has “repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); see also Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570,106 S.Ct. 3101, 3105, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986). Despite the strong interests that support the harmless error doctrine,9 however, the Court has recognized that some constitutional errors require reversal without regard to the evidence in the particular case. Rose, 106 S.Ct. at 3106. This limitation recognizes "that there are some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error.” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 23, 87 S.Ct. at 827-828 (emphasis added).
The Court in Rose sought to clarify this notion:
The State of course must provide a trial before an impartial judge, with counsel to help the accused defend against the State’s charge. Without these basic protections, a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or inno*594cence, and no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair.
Rose, 106 S.Ct. at 3106 (citations omitted). Harmless error analysis, therefore, “presupposes a trial, at which the defendant, represented by counsel, may present evidence and argument before an impartial judge and jury.” Id. (citing Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 681, 106 S.Ct. at 1436). As the Court statéd in Rose, “[e]ach of the examples Chapman cited of errors that could never be harmless either aborted the basic trial process, or denied it altogether.” Rose, 106 S.Ct. at 3106 n. 6. Therefore, “while there are some errors to which Chapman does not apply, they are the exception and not the rule. Accordingly, if the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator, there is a strong presumption that any other errors that may have occurred are subject to harmless error analysis.” Id. at 3106-07. Sawyer has failed to overcome that presumption.
We agree with the district court that a state law right to “death-qualified” counsel of five years experience is not included in Chapman's “basic to a fair trial” category. Sawyer concedes that the right to a five year attorney is not itself a federal constitutional right. He argues, however, that “the state’s arbitrary abrogation of that right may give rise to an equal protection ... violation.” This federal constitutional right, the argument continues, is basic to a fair trial under Chapman “in the context of a breakdown in the state-guaranteed trial machinery in a capital case.” We do not agree. The alleged constitutional violation in the instant case neither aborted the basic trial process nor denied it altogether, for Sawyer received the effective assistance of counsel.10 “The thrust of the many constitutional rules governing the conduct of criminal trials is to ensure that those trials lead to fair and correct judgments.” Id. at 3107. Recognizing that “the Constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a fair trial, not a perfect one,” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 681, 106 S.Ct. at 1436, we conclude that the state trial court’s failure to comply with article 512 does not compare with the kind of errors that have been found to automatically require reversal of an otherwise valid conviction. Sawyer’s equal protection claim, therefore, was properly subjected to a harmless error analysis by the district court.
Having determined that a harmless error analysis is appropriate in this case, we must turn to the question of whether the state trial court’s appointment of counsel with less than five years experience was indeed harmless. An error is harmless where, after reviewing the facts of the case, the evidence adduced at trial, and the impact the constitutional violations had on the trial process, the evidence remains not only sufficient to support the verdict but so overwhelming as to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499, 512, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1982, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983); Germany v. Estelle, 639 F.2d 1301, 1303 (5th Cir. March 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 850, 102 S.Ct. 290, 70 L.Ed.2d 140 (1981); Harryman v. Estelle, 616 F.2d 870, 876 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 860, 101 S.Ct. 161, 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980). Given the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented at Sawyer’s trial, we agree with the district court that the state trial court’s error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Sawyer’s equal protection claim, therefore, must fail.
Sawyer’s due process claim is also meritless. Where there has been a violation of state procedure, the proper inquiry “is to determine whether there has *595been a constitutional infraction of the defendant’s due process rights which would render the trial as a whole ‘fundamentally unfair.’ ” Manning v. Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, 786 F.2d 710, 711-12 (5th Cir.1986) (quoting Nelson v. Estelle, 642 F.2d 903, 906 (5th Cir. Unit A April 1981)). In order to show that his trial was fundamentally unfair, Sawyer must demonstrate that some prejudice resulted from the state trial court’s failure to appoint counsel with five years experience. See Manning, 786 F.2d at 712. As we explained earlier, Sawyer has failed to demonstrate prejudice and, therefore, his claim must fail.11
C. Caldwell Violation 12
Finally, Sawyer maintains that certain remarks by the prosecutor in closing argument at the punishment stage of his trial violate the rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985) and require that his sentencing process be redone.
Caldwell is a rule of narrow application. It applies only to comments that mislead a jury in the capital sentencing process by inducing it to feel less responsible than it should for the sentencing decision. Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 183-84 n. 15, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 2473 n. 15, 91 L.Ed.2d 144, 159 n. 15. The rule is well illustrated by the case in which it was laid down.
In Caldwell, the defendant had murdered the female proprietor of a small, rural bait and grocery store in the course of a robbery. Defense counsel, unable to find much comfort in relevant fact or law, took refuge in rhetoric, dwelling at some length on the Sixth Commandment, the Savior, the Crucifixion, mercy, forgiveness and certain of the less desirable aspects of being electrocuted. In response, the prosecuting attorney attacked the defense for cynically heaping undue responsibility upon the jury, while the judge concurred — overruling an objection to the argument and directing its continuance:
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Ladies and Gentlemen, I intend to be brief. I’m in complete disagreement with the approach the defense has taken. I don’t think it’s fair. I think it’s unfair. I think the lawyers know better. Now, they would have you believe that you’re going to kill this man and they know— they know that your decision is not the final decision. My God, how unfair can you be? Your job is reviewable. They know it. Yet the ...
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I’m going to object to this statement. It’s out of order.
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Your Honor, throughout their argument, they said this panel was going to kill this man. I think that’s terribly unfair.
THE COURT: Alright, go on and make the full expression so the Jury will not be confused. I think it proper that the jury realizes that it is reviewable automatically as the death penalty commands. I think that information is now needed by the Jury so they will not be confused.
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Throughout their remarks, they attempted to give you the opposite, sparing the truth. They said “Thou shalt not kill.” If that applies to him, it applies to you, insinuating that your decision is the final decision and that they’re gonna *596take Bobby Caldwell out in the front of this Courthouse in moments and string him up and that is terribly, terribly unfair. For they know, as I know, and as Judge Baker has told you, that the decision you render is automatically reviewable by the Supreme Court. Automatically, and I think it’s unfair and I don’t mind telling them so.
Caldwell, 472 U.S. at 325-26, 105 S.Ct. at 2637-38 (emphasis added).
The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Marshall — whose consistent view has long been that capital punishment is forbidden by the Constitution in any case whatever — declared this capital sentence unenforcible because it was imposed by a jury that had been misled by the judge and prosecutor about its critical and central role in the sentencing procedure. Concluding that the prosecutor’s comments rendered the sentencing proceeding fundamentally unfair, a divided court required resen-tencing.
A considerable extension of Caldwell would be required to accommodate Sawyer’s contentions. In our view, a most critical factor in Caldwell was the trial judge’s approval and encouragement of the prosecutor’s tendentious response to defense counsel’s spread-eagled oratory.13 As our Brethren of the Eleventh Circuit have observed:
Because of the trial judge’s agreement with the prosecutor’s comments, it was as if the jury received an erroneous instruction from the court at the sentencing phase of a capital proceeding, thus ... mandating reversal.
Tucker v. Kemp, 802 F.2d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir.1986) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 1359, 94 L.Ed.2d 529 (1987).
The Supreme Court took a similar view of the passage, observing that the judge “not only failed to correct the prosecutor’s remarks, but in fact openly agreed with them; he stated to the jury that the remarks were proper and necessary, strongly implying that the prosecutor’s portrayal of the jury’s role was correct.” Caldwell, 472 U.S. at 339, 105 S.Ct. at 2645. The comparable proceedings here, while falling short of perfection as do most actual trials, are a far cry from those in Caldwell. The respect in which they approach it most closely is in the remarks of the prosecutor; in all other respects of significance, they resemble if not at all. We do not condone the remarks in question and we shall discuss them in a moment. Before doing so, however, we think it appropriate to attempt to put the rule of Caldwell into a broader context and to sketch out a general approach for dealing with alleged breaches of it.
A general survey of the authorities indicates, as common sense supports, that the Caldwell problem results from prosecutorial attempts to counter a particular set of last-resort arguments by the defense in capital cases. Given that in most such cases verdicts must be unanimous, it necessarily follows that, when all else seems lost, counsel may seek to persuade at least one juror (if no more) that: he or she is being asked to “kill” the defendant, that killing is always wrong, that even evidence that seems absolutely conclusive is sometimes not, that at its best human judgment is fallible, that if the defendant is erroneously executed no correction of the error is possible, and that at all events mercy is better than retribution. Taken together, these are formidable arguments, arguments that can be made in any case whatever, arguments all of which are in varying degrees true. One response which they sometimes evoke from the prosecutor is an exhortation to the jury to view its responsibility as a joint, rather than an individual, one; and several varieties of that response were made in this case, two permissible, one dubious.
The first called on the jury to view itself as the representative of the citizenry, as “we the people,” declaring by its verdict that the acts of the defendant in torturing his victim to death were intolerable and *597should call down upon him the full force of the law. Another such argument appealed to their group spirit as jurors, assuring them that they did not stand alone in whatever they did but rather functioned together as an institution:
It’s all your doing. Don’t feel otherwise. Don’t feel like you are the one, because it is very easy for defense lawyers to try and make each and every one of you feel like you are pulling the switch. That is not so.
So far, so good; fair argument.
The next sentence, however, embarks upon a far different and more dubious sort of “joint responsibility” argument, one that vaguely and generally reassures the jury that “if you are wrong in your decision, believe me, there will be others who will be behind you to either agree with you or to say you are wrong....” Who these “others” were, the jury was not told. In addition, at various points in the argument the prosecutor improperly referred to the jury’s verdict as a “recommendation,” and at another as “only the initial step.” No objection was made by the defense at any of the foregoing points.
Following them, however, defense counsel advised the jury in his closing argument that:
The decision whether Robert Sawyer lives or dies is in your hands....
I personally do not agree with the death penalty. I don’t think there is any circumstance when anyone has the right to kill another person no matter how we try to get away from it. That is what we would be doing is killing another person. ... I’m going to ask you to give Robert Sawyer the living death of life imprisonment. Don’t kill. Thank you.
After the prosecutor’s closing argument, in which he advised the jury that it really had no choice but to recommend the death penalty, “no matter how unpleasant or how difficult this type of decision may be for you to make,” the judge charged the jury in standard form, directing them to the evidence as the basis for their decision, describing their forthcoming verdict in one place as a recommendation of sentence and at the other as the imposition of one, and concluding:
It is your responsibility in accordance with the principles of law I have instructed whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. Go with Mr. Miller back in the jury room.
So much for the circumstances of how the jury was advised. We turn now to the law.
The vice in the argument against which Caldwell’s rule is directed is not so much that it minimizes the jury’s role in the capital sentencing procedure as that it minimizes it untruthfully.14 It is all too likely that a lay juror who has been told that panel after panel of judges — right up through the Supreme Court — will automatically “review” his verdict may believe that they “review” it as he decided it, in a plenary fashion. Were he told that the “review” would not at all directly concern itself with the central issue before him, life or death for the accused, he would necessarily feel far less reassurance at the prospect. Where, however, a reading of the record makes clear that the jury was told that the life-or-death decision was up to them and that execution could not be exacted without their permission, we think that Caldwell is satisfied.
We think it plain that this was the case as to Sawyer. Both the prosecution and the defense, as well as the trial judge, advised Sawyer’s jury that if it chose life imprisonment as its verdict, that was the end of the matter. The defense implored them to do so, and the prosecution — despite various ambiguous statements indicated above — told them it was up to them: “The decision is in your hands.”
In the last analysis, the fundamental question, in this as in other habeas cases involving prosecutorial remarks complained of, is whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the remarks “so infected the *598trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Darden, 477 U.S. at 181, 106 S.Ct. at 2472, 91 L.Ed.2d at 157 (quoting from Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974)). In a Caldwell situation, however, we agree with our Brethren of the Eleventh Circuit that because the prosecutor’s remarks typically amount to a mis-instruction to the jury on the legal effect of their verdict, the reaction to them of defense counsel and trial judge are of especial importance:
Of critical importance in Caldwell was the fact that the trial judge approved of the prosecutor’s comments, stating that it was proper that the jury be told that its decision was automatically reviewable. See id.; Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. at 325-26, 105 S.Ct. at 2638. Because of the trial judge’s agreement with the prosecutor’s comments, it was as if the jury received an erroneous instruction from the court at the sentencing phase of a capital proceeding, thus triggering the Eighth Amendment’s heightened requirement of reliability in a capital case and mandating reversal.2
Tucker, 802 F.2d at 1295.
Indeed, the only instance of reversal for a Caldwell violation in our Circuit to which we are cited or which our researches have located is Wheat v. Thigpen, 793 F.2d 621 (1986), in which the trial court approved the making of such an argument over defense counsel’s objection:
Again, I say to you, and then I’ll leave it to you, just remember this, if your verdict is that of the death penalty, that’s not final. There’s so many more people who will look at this case after you have made your decision in this case. Others will look at it, and look at your work, and see if you’ve made the right decision. And I can assure you, Ladies and Gentlemen, that if one finds that you have not, that they will send him back, and tell us to try it over, because someone made a mistake.
BY MR. STEGAL: May It Please The Court, I’m gonna object to that again. He’s telling this jury to go ahead and do something even if it’s wrong, because if it’s wrong, they’re gonna send it back. That’s not right. I’m gonna object.
BY THE COURT: I think the argument was allowed — it was opened up on your argument. I’ll overrule it.
793 F.2d at 628.
In so stating we do not, of course, intend to say that reversal is never appropriate in the case of a Caldwell-type misstatement unless it has been futilely objected to or endorsed as proper or correct by the trial judge. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances; and it is not impossible to imagine statements by a prosecutor that, even absent an objection, minimize the jury’s role to such a degree as to require reversal if left uncorrected. Even in Caldwell, however, where the trial court had overruled an objection and in doing so expressly endorsed the prosecutor’s minimizing remarks, the Supreme Court emphasized that his remarks were “quite focused, unambiguous, and strong.” 472 U.S. at 340, 105 S.Ct. at 2645. And indeed they were: beginning with two accusations of duplicity on the part of the defensé, the argument proceeds through an attack focused on the defense’s “insinuating" that the jury’s decision was final, invokes the trial judge’s already-expressed approval of its somewhat misleading statements, and winds up by assuring the jurors that their decision is “automatically reviewable by the Supreme Court.” By contrast, the prosecutor’s vague references in today’s case to “others who will be behind you” and the like pale into relative insignificance.
The prosecutor in today’s case indulged in no claim that the defense was disingenuously or cynically attempting to mislead the jury, as did his comparable figure in Caldwell. Nor did counsel raise any objec*599tion, futile or otherwise, to any of the prosecutor’s remarks to which Sawyer now takes exception; and the trial court neither approved nor endorsed them. By contrast to the prosecutor’s statements in Caldwell, which were quite focused, unambiguous and strong — trumpeting automatic review by the Supreme Court and accusing the defense of deliberately misleading the jury as to its role — these were vague and ambiguous. And although we agree with the federal district court that the prosecutor’s remarks complained of were improper, we also agree that they did not constitute reversible error — error that so infected the trial as to deny due process.15
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.