Third, Brown's contention that responding to the prosecutor's misstatement would have "spotlighted the inadmissible evidence and risked compounding its prejudicial effect" is unavailing. Brown cites State v. Bartel, No. A19-0022, 2020 WL 614242, at *5 (Minn.App. Feb. 10, 2020), for the proposition that he had no real opportunity to rebut the prosecutor's misstatements because obtaining a curative instruction would have amplified the effect of the improper statements. Bartel is neither binding nor persuasive.