Does a prosecutor have an obligation or obligation to present evidence of misconduct to the jury in a criminal case?

People v. Woods (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 106, 112-113, which defendant cites, confirms "[c]omments on the state of the evidence or on the defense's failure to call logical witnesses, introduce material evidence, or rebut the People's case are generally permissible." In that case, the prosecution argued the defendant was "obligated" to put on evidence of a police officer's misconduct if the jury was to discredit that officer's testimony and concluded, " 'in this day and age, you'd have heard about it' " from the witness stand if there had been any such misconductyou didn't hear it, " '[b]ecause it doesn't exist.' " (Id. at p. 112.) The prosecutor's argument in this case makes no suggestion of an added defense obligation. Additionally, the court in Woods feared the prosecutor's argument required the jury to reach a false conclusion. If, as the prosecution argued, evidence of misconduct was readily available (a falsity; it was confidential), and if, as the prosecution further argued, none existed, the jury could only conclude counsel had checked the records, had actual knowledge of no misconduct, and was vouching as to this extra-record evidence. (Id. at pp. 112-113.) There is no such problem in this case. Nothing in the prosecutor's argument asked the jury to rely on undisclosed investigative efforts or test results.

In a similar vein to the "no other suspect" remarks, the prosecutor also argued to the jury "the DNA . . . tells you no one else on earth left their DNA at that crime scene." Defendant made no objection to this assertion at trial, and has therefore forfeited his misconduct argument related to it. (People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 462.) In any

Page 20