Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comment on defense counsel

Text: Defendant contends that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by undermining the credibility of defendant's counsel. During her closing argument at the guilt phase, the prosecutor alluded to a compliment the trial court made to the prosecutor and the defense attorneys. The prosecutor stated it had been a pleasure to work with defense counsel, then added: They are extremely fine. And what is their job? Their job is to create straw men. Their job is to put up smoke, red herrings. And they have done a heck of a good job. And my job is to straighten that out and show you where the truth lies. So let's do that. As the People have observed, defense counsel failed to object. Moreover, the prosecutor's comments are not so extreme that an admonition would not have cured any harm. (See, e.g., People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1216-1217, 40 Cal. Rptr.2d 456, 892 P.2d 1199 [prompt admonition corrected any jury misconceptions caused by statement, `You're an attorney. It's your duty to lie, conceal and distort everything and slander everybody'].) Therefore, the claim is waived. Even if we consider the claim on the merits, however, we would conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury improperly was influenced by the prosecutor's remarks. ( People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 526, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 751, 905 P.2d 420; People v. Cain, supra, 10 Cal.4th 1, 48, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 481, 892 P.2d 1224.) In People v. Marquez, supra, 1 Cal.4th 553, 575-576, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 710, 822 P.2d 418, we determined that the prosecutor's comments, that a `heavy, heavy smokescreen has been laid down [by the defense] to hide the truth from you,' constituted a proper argument in response to the defense presented. In People v. Cummings, supra, 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1302, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 796, 850 P.2d 1, we concluded that a prosecutor's argument accusing the defense of attempting to hide the truth, and his argument employing an ink from an octopus metaphor, would be understood as nothing more than urging the jury not to be misled by the evidence. (See also People v. Medina, supra, 11 Cal.4th 694, 759, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 906 P.2d 2; People v. Gionis, supra, 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1216, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 456, 892 P.2d 1199; People v. Mitcham, supra, 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1081-1082, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 230, 824 P.2d 1277.) The prosecutor's remarks in the present case similarly would be understood by the jury as an admonition not to be misled by the defense interpretation of the evidence, rather than as a personal attack on defense counsel. Accordingly, we also reject defendant's contention that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to the remarks or seek an admonition.