Does a prosecutor's characterization of a defense strategy as "ink from the octopus" constitute misconduct or denigration of counsel?

Contrary to appellant's contention we do not characterize the prosecutor's statements as a denigration of counsel but rather of a defense theory, something the prosecutor is entitled to do. The prosecutor's comments did not exceed the bounds of "'vigorous yet fair argument'" or constitute an outrageous epithet. (People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 527.)

Appellant cites a specific example when the prosecutor equated the defense strategy to that of a squid that intentionally squirts out ink to "muddy up the waters" so as to make his escape. The jury could certainly understand it to be nothing more than urging the jury not to be misled by the defense. (See People v. Cummings, supra, 4

Page 25

Cal.4th at p. 1302 [prosecutor's characterization of defense tactics as "'ink from the octopus'" not misconduct]; People v. Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 575, 576 [prosecutor's reference to defense as "smokescreen" not misconduct].)