How have courts dealt with allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the context of eyewitness identification?

(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [harmless beyond a reasonable doubt]; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [not reasonably probable appellant would have obtained a more favorable result absent the alleged misconduct].) As stated previously, the evidence against appellants was very strong, even without the identifications made by the eyewitnesses. The jury acquitted appellants of two restaurant robberies against multiple victims who identified appellants, signaling that the jury carefully evaluated the evidence. We reject appellants' arguments regarding prosecutorial misconduct.