[brief] To begin his summation, the prosecutor relied on an extended metaphor about magic, explaining that magic is all “tricks,” “illusions,” and “things like that. ”  (9T 197-12 to 13)  The prosecutor said that “the best tricks are ones that you can look at . . . and [say], I know they’re going to try to trick me.  . . . [a]nd they still get you. ”  (9T 197-16 to 21)  He explained to the jury that magicians “use distraction” or “slight of hand” to do this, and that many magicians rely on “distractions that distract you from those things” that are right in front of you.  (9T 197-23 to 198-4)  Concluding the introduction to his summation, the prosecutor asserted, “a lot of what the defense wants you to believe are distractions. ”  (9T 198-5 to 6)  The prosecutor did not stop there, continuing the theme of “distraction” throughout his summation to discredit defense counsel’s arguments.  For example, after defense counsel argued that law enforcement failed to ask [...] to identify [...], the prosecutor responded that the failure to present photo arrays was “another distraction. ”  (10T 203-10 to 12)  After defense counsel argued that the incident may not have happened in the way Mr. [...] described, the prosecutor asserted to the jury that the “[d]efense with their distractions wanted you to think well maybe something else [happened]. ”  (10T 209-17 to 21)  And, in his conclusion, the prosecutor brushed aside defense counsel’s argument that the investigation was unreliable, stating, “[d]istractions aside, problems with the case, and investigation aside, the facts are simple.  The video showed two people going in.  Mr. [...] tells you two people came in.  [...] tells you he’s one of those people.  Everything else is a distraction. ”  (10T 220-6 to 10)  Like Pindale and Lockett, the prosecutor’s statements during summation improperly accused defense counsel of using distractions to cause confusion.  Statements advising jurors that defense counsel wants them to “look at some smoke in the corner of the room,” Lockett, 249 N.J. Super. at 434, become “so confused that you misread the evidence,” Pindale, 249 N.J. Super. at 286, or to not be fooled by defense counsel’s “distractions” all similarly demean the role of the defense attorney, impugn defense counsel’s motives, and encourage the jury to dismiss or ignore defense counsel’s arguments.  As the courts found in Pindale and Lockett, these types of statements are improper.  See State v. Frost, 158 N.J. 76, 86 (1999) (emphasizing that the prosecutor’s comments “suggesting that defense counsel’s closing arguments were ‘lawyer talk’” were improperly disparaging).  Moreover, the prosecutor’s statements were clearly capable of causing an unjust result.  R. 2:10-2.  Following [...]’s commentary on [...]’s veracity and disclosure of unrelated prior bad acts, which irreversibly tainted [...]’s credibility, the prosecuting attorney likewise used his summation to taint defense counsel’s credibility.  The last thing the jury heard before it began deliberating was the prosecutor’s commentary encouraging the jury to dismiss defense counsel’s argument as a “distraction,” interfering with their ability to independently weigh the evidence.  When a prosecutor urges a jury to cast aside defense counsel’s argument as nothing more than a “distraction,” the error can clearly cause an unjust result.  [...]’s conviction therefore must be reversed.