prosecutor to accuse defense in California

2023“It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense [citations], or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury [citation].” (Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846 .) By suggesting that the public defender’s office has implemented policies that willfully prohibited the collection of potentially incriminating evidence, the prosecutor was necessarily implying that defense counsel was complicit in a false defense.

2022There’s no evidence to support it.” 26 “ ‘ “A prosecutor commits misconduct if he or she attacks the integrity of defense counsel, or casts aspersions on defense counsel.” ’ ” (People v. Seumanu, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 1336-1337; see also People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 846 [“It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense [citations], or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury”].) “Such attacks on counsel’s credibility risk focusing the jury’s attention on irrelevant matters and diverting the prosecution from its proper role o

2002(People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846; People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 977-978 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25 , 959 P.2d 183 ].) “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense . . . .” (People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846.) For defendant’s claim to prevail on the merits we ask “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1001; People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1072 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2

2002(People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846; People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 977-978 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25 , 959 P.2d 183 ].) “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense . . . .” (People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846.) For defendant’s claim to prevail on the merits we ask “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1001; People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1072 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2

2020(People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 432 ; Huggins, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 207 [not misconduct for prosecutor to argue defense counsel tried to “smoke one past us”]; People v. Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553 , 575–576 [no misconduct in referring to defense as “smokescreen”].) Our Supreme Court has made clear that “wide latitude” is the standard applied to a prosecutor’s comments on defense counsel’s tactics and factual accounts: “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense [citations], or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury [c

2020(People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 432 ; Huggins, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 207 [not misconduct for prosecutor to argue defense counsel tried to “smoke one past us”]; People v. Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553 , 575–576 [no misconduct in referring to defense as “smokescreen”].) Our Supreme Court has made clear that “wide latitude” is the standard applied to a prosecutor’s comments on defense counsel’s tactics and factual accounts: “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense [citations], or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury [c

2015(People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 846 .) “When a prosecutor denigrates defense counsel, it directs the jury’s 27 attention away from the evidence and is therefore improper. [Citation.] In addressing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct that is based on the denigration of opposing counsel, we view the prosecutor’s comments in relation to the remarks of defense counsel, and inquire whether the former constitutes a fair response to the latter. [Citation.]” (People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 978 , overruled on another point in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .) “[T]he

2015Such attacks on counsel’s credibility risk focusing the jury’s attention on irrelevant matters and diverting the prosecution from its proper role of commenting on the evidence and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom. [Citations.] [¶] Nevertheless, the prosecutor has wide latitude in describing the deficiencies in [defense] counsel’s tactics and factual account. [Citations.]” (People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 846 (Bemore).) “An argument which does no more than point out that the defense is attempting to confuse the issues and urges the jury to focus on what the prosecution believes i

2021Such attacks on counsel’s credibility risk focusing the jury’s attention on irrelevant matters and diverting the prosecution from its proper role of commenting on the evidence and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom.’ (People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 846 .) However, ‘the prosecutor has wide latitude in describing the deficiencies in opposing counsel’s tactics and factual account.’ ” (Winbush, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 484 .) To the extent the jury understood the prosecutor to be disparaging defense counsel by suggesting she fabricated the defense of Ben falling into the poles rather t

2021Such attacks on counsel’s credibility risk focusing the jury’s attention on irrelevant matters and diverting the prosecution from its proper role of commenting on the evidence and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom.’ [Citation.] However, ‘the prosecutor has wide latitude in describing the deficiencies in opposing counsel’s tactics and factual account.’” (People v. Winbush, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 484 .) Viewing the prosecutor’s comments in the context of the arguments below, we see no prosecutorial error.

2023(See Seumanu, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1338 [misconduct to impugn integrity of defense counsel, such as implying that defense counsel put forward a “sham defense”].) However, even if we assume that the prosecutor’s statements constituted misconduct, reversal is not required unless Castaneda suffered prejudice.

2022There’s no evidence to support it.” 26 “ ‘ “A prosecutor commits misconduct if he or she attacks the integrity of defense counsel, or casts aspersions on defense counsel.” ’ ” (People v. Seumanu, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 1336-1337; see also People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 846 [“It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense [citations], or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury”].) “Such attacks on counsel’s credibility risk focusing the jury’s attention on irrelevant matters and diverting the prosecution from its proper role o

2015Denigrating Defense Counsel “A prosecutor commits misconduct if he or she attacks the integrity of defense counsel, or casts aspersions on defense counsel.” (Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 832 .) “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense [citations], or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury [citation].

2002(People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846; People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 977-978 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25 , 959 P.2d 183 ].) “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense . . . .” (People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846.) For defendant’s claim to prevail on the merits we ask “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1001; People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1072 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2

2013Such attacks on counsel’s credibility risk focusing the jury’s attention on irrelevant matters and diverting the prosecution from its proper role of commenting on the evidence and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom. [Citations.] [¶] Nevertheless, the prosecutor has wide latitude in describing the deficiencies in opposing counsel’s tactics and factual account. [Citations.] In so doing, the prosecutor may highlight the discrepancies between counsel’s opening statement and the evidence. [Citation.] Misconduct claims also have been rejected where the prosecutor anticipates the flaws likely to

2002(People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846; People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 977-978 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25 , 959 P.2d 183 ].) “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense . . . .” (People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846.) For defendant’s claim to prevail on the merits we ask “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1001; People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1072 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2

2021(People v. Woods (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 106, 116-117 [“‘It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense’ or to otherwise denigrate defense counsel”].) This argument relies entirely on misconstruing counsel’s comment.

2020While it is improper for a prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense, a prosecutor “has wide latitude in describing the deficiencies in opposing counsel’s tactics and factual account.” (People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 846 , see also People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 759 [no misconduct where prosecutor said counsel can “ ‘twist a little, poke a little, try to draw some speculation, try to get you to buy something’ ”].) We agree with defendant that the facts and law are necessarily on a defendant’s side if there is reasonable doubt that a defendant committed the

2015(People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 846 .) “When a prosecutor denigrates defense counsel, it directs the jury’s 27 attention away from the evidence and is therefore improper. [Citation.] In addressing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct that is based on the denigration of opposing counsel, we view the prosecutor’s comments in relation to the remarks of defense counsel, and inquire whether the former constitutes a fair response to the latter. [Citation.]” (People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 978 , overruled on another point in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .) “[T]he

2008Additionally, when the claim focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 427 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408 , 966 P.2d 442 ], quoting People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ].) “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense [citations], or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury [citation].” (Pe

2008Additionally, when the claim focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 427 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408 , 966 P.2d 442 ], quoting People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ].) “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense [citations], or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury [citation].” (Pe

2008Additionally, when the claim focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 427 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408 , 966 P.2d 442 ], quoting People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ].) “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense [citations], or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury [citation].” (Pe

2008Additionally, when the claim focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 427 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408 , 966 P.2d 442 ], quoting People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ].) “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense [citations], or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury [citation].” (Pe

2008Additionally, when the claim focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 427 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408 , 966 P.2d 442 ], quoting People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ].) “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense [citations], or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury [citation].” (Pe

2008Additionally, when the claim focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 427 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408 , 966 P.2d 442 ], quoting People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ].) “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense [citations], or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury [citation].” (Pe

2006(People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 846 [94 *117 Cal.Rptr.2d 840, 996 P.2d 1152 ]; see also People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 753 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 ].) “Conjure” means to “make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic,” call an image to mind, cause someone to feel or think of something, or call upon a spirit or ghost “to appear, by means of a magic ritual.” (The New Oxford American Diet. <http://www. oxfordreference.com> [as of Nov. 30, 2006].) With reference to a witness or other evidence, “conjured up” clearly connotes the creation

2006(People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 846 [94 *117 Cal.Rptr.2d 840, 996 P.2d 1152 ]; see also People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 753 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 ].) “Conjure” means to “make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic,” call an image to mind, cause someone to feel or think of something, or call upon a spirit or ghost “to appear, by means of a magic ritual.” (The New Oxford American Diet. <http://www. oxfordreference.com> [as of Nov. 30, 2006].) With reference to a witness or other evidence, “conjured up” clearly connotes the creation

2002(People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846; People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 977-978 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25 , 959 P.2d 183 ].) “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense . . . .” (People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846.) For defendant’s claim to prevail on the merits we ask “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1001; People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1072 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2

2002(People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846; People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 977-978 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25 , 959 P.2d 183 ].) “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense . . . .” (People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846.) For defendant’s claim to prevail on the merits we ask “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1001; People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1072 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2

2002(People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846; People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 977-978 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25 , 959 P.2d 183 ].) “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense . . . .” (People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846.) For defendant’s claim to prevail on the merits we ask “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1001; People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1072 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2

2002(People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846; People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 977-978 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25 , 959 P.2d 183 ].) “It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense . . . .” (People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846.) For defendant’s claim to prevail on the merits we ask “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1001; People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1072 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2

2000It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense (People v. Perry (1972) 7 Cal.3d 756, 789-790 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 499 P.2d 129 ]; People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal.3d 839, 845-847 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 489 P.2d 564 ]), or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury (People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 538 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 778 P.2d 129 ]).

2000It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense (People v. Perry (1972) 7 Cal.3d 756, 789-790 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 499 P.2d 129 ]; People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal.3d 839, 845-847 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 489 P.2d 564 ]), or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury (People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 538 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 778 P.2d 129 ]).

2000It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense (People v. Perry (1972) 7 Cal.3d 756, 789-790 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 499 P.2d 129 ]; People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal.3d 839, 845-847 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 489 P.2d 564 ]), or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury (People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 538 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 778 P.2d 129 ]).

2000It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense (People v. Perry (1972) 7 Cal.3d 756, 789-790 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 499 P.2d 129 ]; People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal.3d 839, 845-847 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 489 P.2d 564 ]), or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury (People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 538 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 778 P.2d 129 ]).

2000It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense (People v. Perry (1972) 7 Cal.3d 756, 789-790 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 499 P.2d 129 ]; People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal.3d 839, 845-847 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 489 P.2d 564 ]), or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury (People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 538 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 778 P.2d 129 ]).

2000It is generally improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense (People v. Perry (1972) 7 Cal.3d 756, 789-790 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 499 P.2d 129 ]; People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal.3d 839, 845-847 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 489 P.2d 564 ]), or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury (People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 538 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 778 P.2d 129 ]).