How have courts dealt with the issue of prosecutorial misconduct in a sexual assault case?

appeal. That forfeits the challenge. (See People v. Wrest (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1088, 1105 ["by failing to interpose any objection at trial, defendant waived any error or misconduct emanating from the prosecutor's argument that could have been cured by a timely admonition"].)

Defendant asks that we, nevertheless, exercise our inherent discretion to reach the issue of prosecutorial misconduct or alternatively to review it as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We decline to exercise discretion but will address it as a claim of ineffective assistance. As such, defendant must show (1) his trial counsel's performance "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness . . . under prevailing professional norms," and (2) he was prejudiced by the deficient performance. (See Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 691-692 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693-694, 696].)

Defendant first contends the prosecutor committed misconduct under Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [14 L.Ed.2d 106] (Griffin) by indirectly arguing to the jury that it should consider defendant's decision not to testify. He maintains the prosecutor's invitation to the jury to ask itself "who sat in this chair and told us what happened[?]" was an indirect reference to defendant's failure to testify. We disagree.

A. Background