Does the Defendant have a claim that the Prosecutor's use of the phrase "we all know" when addressing the jury reveals that the prosecutor has personal knowledge of matters outside the record, known only to the prosecution?

Defendant implies the prosecutor's colloquial use of the phrase "we all know" when addressing the jury reveals a nefarious reference to matters outside the record, known only to the prosecution. We disagree. Rather, the jury would have reasonably understood the prosecutor's reference to "we all know" as referring to the evidence that the prosecution had presented to the jury during the trial and all the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it; the use of the rhetorical "we" was meant to include the jury. (Cf. People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 337 [references to the truthfulness of a witness's testimony did not suggest the prosecutor had personal knowledge of facts outside the record].) Thus, to the extent "the vouching claim [was] preserved, it would be without merit because the comment would not be understood to refer to facts available solely to the government or to the prosecutor's personal knowledge or beliefs or the prestige of her office." (Mendoza, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 907.)