Can a defense counsel withhold an objection to a prosecutor's closing argument?

Given the uncertainty that the prosecutor's argument crossed the line into an improper argument, and the numerous correct statements of the law provided to the jury by the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the trial court, it is not inconceivable or unreasonable that defense counsel made a tactical decision to withhold his objection, preferring instead to correct the impression the jurors may have drawn from the prosecutor's apparent misstatement in his own argument, rather than drawing attention to the point by objecting. We cannot agree with defendants either that there was "no conceivable tactical purpose" for counsel's silence during the prosecutor's closing argument. Accordingly, we conclude defense counsel's lack of objection to the prosecutor's arguments concerning the presumption of innocence and burden of proof fell well within the wide range of professional competence that is deemed constitutionally effective. (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746.)