Does a prosecutor improperly imply to a defendant that his trial counsel knew he was guilty and were fabricating a defense which they themselves disbelieved?

Defendant claims the prosecutor improperly implied during rebuttal argument that his trial counsel knew he was guilty and were fabricating a defense which they themselves disbelieved. The prosecutor, he asserts, insinuated that counsel had attempted to mislead the jury by making up stories about suppressed evidence and representing DNA evidence in a way they knew was unsupported. These contentions lack merit. As the record discloses, the prosecutor pointedly remarked that defense counsel had "a difficult case to argue," given the prosecution's strong evidence against defendant. Although she contended that counsel's DNA and suppressed evidence arguments were not supported by the record, she did so without impugning defense counsel's honesty and integrity. Such arguments clearly were appropriate. (See People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 846, 94 Cal. Rptr.2d 840, 996 P.2d 1152 ["prosecutor has wide latitude in describing the deficiencies in opposing counsel's tactics and factual account"]; cf. People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal.3d 839, 847, 97 Cal.Rptr. 684, 489 P.2d 564 [an unsupported implication

[28 Cal.4th 162]

that defense counsel fabricated a defense constitutes misconduct].)

[28 Cal.4th 162]