factual deficiencies defense in California

2015The prosecutor continued: “I have to prove to you that this happened beyond a reasonable doubt.” “ ‘We accord the prosecutor wide latitude in describing the factual deficiencies of the defense case.’ [Citation.]” (Edwards, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 740 , quoting People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal.4th 703, 733 .) In People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229 , the Supreme Court concluded that a prosecutor’s comments on a defendant’s failure to contradict prosecution evidence was not misconduct.

2014The prosecutor is afforded “wide latitude in describing the factual deficiencies of the defense case.” (People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal.4th 703, 733 .) The prosecutor then went on to express the view that, although defendant’s defense was preposterous, he nevertheless hoped the jury would believe him. 17 The prosecutor did not criticize defendant for exercising his right to a trial.

2015(Edwards, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 740 .) As such, the prosecutor's statements were "a fair comment on the evidence." (Medina, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 758 ; see People v. Ratliff (1986) 41 Cal.3d 675, 690-691 [prosecutor fairly commented on the evidence (i.e., did not commit prosecutorial error) by arguing in 19 closing that the defense failed to present "any evidence . . . that defendant did not commit the charged offenses"]; People v. Miller (1990) 50 Cal.3d 954, 996 [even though defendant did not testify, prosecutor's argument that defendant had no explanation for why he was present at the s

2015(Edwards, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 740 .) As such, the prosecutor's statements were "a fair comment on the evidence." (Medina, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 758 ; see People v. Ratliff (1986) 41 Cal.3d 675, 690-691 [prosecutor fairly commented on the evidence (i.e., did not commit prosecutorial error) by arguing in 19 closing that the defense failed to present "any evidence . . . that defendant did not commit the charged offenses"]; People v. Miller (1990) 50 Cal.3d 954, 996 [even though defendant did not testify, prosecutor's argument that defendant had no explanation for why he was present at the s

2015(Edwards, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 740 .) As such, the prosecutor's statements were "a fair comment on the evidence." (Medina, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 758 ; see People v. Ratliff (1986) 41 Cal.3d 675, 690-691 [prosecutor fairly commented on the evidence (i.e., did not commit prosecutorial error) by arguing in 19 closing that the defense failed to present "any evidence . . . that defendant did not commit the charged offenses"]; People v. Miller (1990) 50 Cal.3d 954, 996 [even though defendant did not testify, prosecutor's argument that defendant had no explanation for why he was present at the s

2015(Edwards, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 740 .) As such, the prosecutor's statements were "a fair comment on the evidence." (Medina, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 758 ; see People v. Ratliff (1986) 41 Cal.3d 675, 690-691 [prosecutor fairly commented on the evidence (i.e., did not commit prosecutorial error) by arguing in 19 closing that the defense failed to present "any evidence . . . that defendant did not commit the charged offenses"]; People v. Miller (1990) 50 Cal.3d 954, 996 [even though defendant did not testify, prosecutor's argument that defendant had no explanation for why he was present at the s

2015(Edwards, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 740 .) As such, the prosecutor's statements were "a fair comment on the evidence." (Medina, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 758 ; see People v. Ratliff (1986) 41 Cal.3d 675, 690-691 [prosecutor fairly commented on the evidence (i.e., did not commit prosecutorial error) by arguing in 19 closing that the defense failed to present "any evidence . . . that defendant did not commit the charged offenses"]; People v. Miller (1990) 50 Cal.3d 954, 996 [even though defendant did not testify, prosecutor's argument that defendant had no explanation for why he was present at the s

2015(Edwards, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 740 .) As such, the prosecutor's statements were "a fair comment on the evidence." (Medina, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 758 ; see People v. Ratliff (1986) 41 Cal.3d 675, 690-691 [prosecutor fairly commented on the evidence (i.e., did not commit prosecutorial error) by arguing in 19 closing that the defense failed to present "any evidence . . . that defendant did not commit the charged offenses"]; People v. Miller (1990) 50 Cal.3d 954, 996 [even though defendant did not testify, prosecutor's argument that defendant had no explanation for why he was present at the s

2021(See People v. Rhoades (2019) 8 Cal.5th 393, 448 [“‘it is neither unusual nor improper to comment on the failure to call logical witnesses’”]; Cash, at p. 733 [“[w]e accord the prosecutor wide latitude in describing the factual deficiencies of the defense case”]; cf. People v. Demetrulias (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1, 31-32 [prosecutor’s argument that the defense’s portrayal of the defendant as a victim constituted an “‘attempt to distract’” the jury from the “‘real victims’” and “that the jury should ‘[l]et that disingenuous attempt fall on deaf ears’” was proper and did not “improperly impugn[ ] defe

2021(See People v. Rhoades (2019) 8 Cal.5th 393, 448 [“‘it is neither unusual nor improper to comment on the failure to call logical witnesses’”]; Cash, at p. 733 [“[w]e accord the prosecutor wide latitude in describing the factual deficiencies of the defense case”]; cf. People v. Demetrulias (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1, 31-32 [prosecutor’s argument that the defense’s portrayal of the defendant as a victim constituted an “‘attempt to distract’” the jury from the “‘real victims’” and “that the jury should ‘[l]et that disingenuous attempt fall on deaf ears’” was proper and did not “improperly impugn[ ] defe

2020Oberdiear’s claim of misconduct fails. “‘Prosecuting attorneys are allowed “a wide range of descriptive comment” and their “‘“argument may be vigorous as long as it amounts to fair comment on the evidence, which can include reasonable inferences, or deductions to be drawn therefrom.”’”’” (People v. Jackson, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 349 .) Further, “‘[w]e accord the prosecutor wide latitude in describing the factual deficiencies of the defense case.’” (People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 740 .) “‘Although a prosecutor is forbidden to comment “‘either directly or indirectly, on the defendant’

2002(People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846.) Here, the prosecutor argued that Rogers could have told a “good lie” and could have come forward much sooner had he falsified his account of the conversation with defendant.