Can a defense counsel raise a timely objection to the prosecution's improper comments to the jury about "speculation"?

Defense counsel did not raise a timely objection nor did counsel request an admonition from the trial court to disregard the prosecution's alleged improper comments. Further, no evidence in the record suggests an admonition was futile nor does appellant argue that an admonition would have been futile. Therefore, this claim is forfeited for appellate review. (People v. Davis, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 612.)

Even if these claims were not forfeited, there was no misconduct. Although the prosecutor referred to emotions the jury might be feeling, she clearly told the jury that they should decide the case based on the evidence and not on emotions. Thus, in context, the reference to emotions was permissible. Further, the judge instructed the jury to not base their decision on emotions, but rather on the evidence. There is a presumption that the jury understood and followed the court's instructions. (People v. Yeoman, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 138-139.) Thus, appellant has not shown prejudice.

The prosecutor's argument about defense "speculation" was also permissible. The prosecutor argued that there was no evidence to support defense counsel's "alternate explanation." This argument was well within the wide latitude given to prosecutors to discuss and draw inferences from the evidence at trial. (People v. Dennis, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 522.) The prosecutor argued that defense counsel did not have evidence to support his argument, and the prosecutor's argument "did little more than urge the jury

Page 19