Can a prosecutor improperly vouch for the credibility of a witness?

"'"It is settled that a prosecutor is given wide latitude during argument. The 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. [Citations.]"' [Citation.]" (People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 822.) Consistent with this principle, "[a] prosecutor may comment upon the credibility of witnesses based on facts contained in the record, and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them, but may not vouch for the credibility of a witness based on personal belief or by referring to evidence outside the record. [Citations.]" (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 958.)

Defendant relies on United States v. Kerr (9th Cir. 1992) 981 F.2d 1050, which held that the following statements regarding various witnesses constituted improper vouching:

"'I think he . . . was very candid.'

"'I don't think it was a pat story, because there are variations.'

"'I think he . . . was candid. I think he was honest.'

"'[A named witness] was candid with you folks.'

Page 18

"'The question is, were they hoodwinking you when they testified? I think not.'"

(Id. at p. 1053.)