(dissenting).
As the majority recognizes the assistant United States Attorney’s remark was improper. And it was so highly prejudicial that I think all the reasons advanced by Judge Stevens for affirmance, while worthy of consideration, do not satisfactorily answer the assertion that the prejudice suffered by the defendant requires a reversal.
The majority’s first two arguments are based on the view that in the overall context of the trial and the closing argument this remark was inconsequential. I believe this underestimates the prejudicial impact implicit in such a remark when made by the representative of the Government.
I cannot accept the majority’s third argument that the actual impact of the statement was ambiguous since its prejudicial effect also “impugned the character of the witnesses upon whom the government was relying.” Although it is arguable that the plea to their pecuniary interest might have caused the jurors to blame the Government witnesses for the high price of their insurance premiums, the defendant and not the witnesses was the one upon whom the jury passed judgment. It is not likely that the jurors would have discredited the witnesses’ testimony, since that action could never help to lower their premiums whereas they might believe a guilty verdict could.
As to the majority’s fourth argument it is sufficient to note that the proseeu*682tor’s appeal was to the jurors’ self-interest rather than their reason.
The fifth reason offered by the majority to support their position is that trial counsel failed to object or request a curative instruction and thus trial counsel too must have felt that the impact of the remark was minimal. The prejudicial effect of this comment was, however, raised in the motion for a new trial. Moreover, the majority has failed, I submit, to fully consider a trial counsel’s dilemma when situations such as here arise during final argument. Judge Pell in his dissent in the recent case in this court, Epperson v. United States, 490 F.2d 98 (7th Cir., 1973) graphically articulated the problem:
Counsel is in a precarious position when improper argument is made. If immediate objection is made, the interruption of the argument may only serve to emphasize the improper comments in the minds of the jury. An objection out of the hearing of the jury, unless it secures a mistrial, is subject to the same difficulty. 490 F. 2d at 101.
Finally the majority maintains that the trial judge sufficiently reminded the jurors of their duty of impartiality in his instructions. In my opinion, these general instructions, remote from the occurrence, did not neutralize the harm. The language of the Supreme Court in Viereck v. United States, 318 U.S. 236, 248, 63 S.Ct. 561, 566, 87 L.Ed. 501 (1943), is apposite:
At a time when passion and prejudice are heightened by. emotions . we do not doubt that these remarks addressed to the jury were highly prejudicial, and that they were offensive to the dignity and good order with which all proceedings in court should be conducted. We think the trial judge should have stopped counsel’s discourse without waiting for an objection ....
This circuit has taken a similar stance. Judge Pell, writing for the court in United States v. Cook, 432 F.2d 1093, 1107 (7th Cir. 1970), stated:
In some instances, if a prosecuting attorney’s remarks were continuously of an inflammatory nature with an appeal to prejudice or similar improper motives, the court might well have the duty sua sponte to correct the situation.
Unlike United States v. Grooms, 454 F.2d 1308 (7th Cir. 1972), the comment in the instant case was not merely an appeal based on the personal belief of the prosecutor, but rather an appeal based on the interest of the jurors as premium payers. On the other hand, the case before us is similar to United States v. Fullmer, 457 F.2d 447 (7th Cir. 1972), in which this court reversed the defendant’s conviction because of prejudicial remarks by the prosecutor. In Fullmer the remarks were addressed to the juror’s fear of riots and snipers whereas the remark in this case was addressed to the juror’s discontent with high insurance premiums. In both instances the comments “could only arouse passion and prejudice causing what we feel was reversible error . . . ” Full-mer, supra at 449.
Recently we have had before us an increasing mumber of appeals involving alleged improper remarks by Government counsel during their summations. Warnings such as we’ gave in United States v. Grooms, 454 F.2d 1308 (7th Cir. 1972),* seem not to have been heeded. See United States v. Tanner, 471 F.2d 128, 136 (7th Cir. 1972). Accordingly, I think firmer and more drastic steps are called for. Moreover, we ought not excuse such conduct because no objection was made. It is a truism that a trial judge should see to it that *683every defendant receives a fair trial. The judge is not a spectator at a gladiatorial contest. A prejudicial comment such as occurred here required the judge to rebuke counsel and give a curative instruction — -without being prompted by an objection.
Not only do such comments fail to add anything in any way probative of the real issues confronting the trier of fact, but they also possess the seeds of reversible error in that they tend to amplify the possibility that lay jurors may be misdirected from properly weighing the evidence. . . . ” 454 F. 2d at 1312.