Opinion ID: 2626390
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alleged Attacks on Counsel

Text: Defendant contends the prosecutor repeatedly disparaged defense counsel in rebuttal argument. The prosecutor told jurors to avoid fall[ing] for counsel's argument in favor of a second degree murder verdict, to view counsel's argument as a ridiculous attempt to allow defendant to walk free, to view counsel's statement as an outrageous attempt to demean the victim and treat her as a Jane Doe, and to view counsel's argument as a legal smoke screen. [21] No misconduct occurred. This case does not involve such forbidden prosecutorial tactics as falsely accusing counsel of fabricating a defense or otherwise deceiving the jury. ( People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 846, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 840, 996 P.2d 1152.) The prosecutor simply used colorful language to permissibly criticize counsel's tactical approach. ( Ibid.; see People v. Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 575-576, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 710, 822 P.2d 418 [upholding reference to defense as smokescreen].) These comments were explicitly aimed at counsel's closing argument and statement, rather than at him personally. We see no improper attack on counsel's integrity.