How have courts treated improper comments made by a prosecutor about defense counsel?

Lastly, this case is distinguishable from People v. Herring (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1066, relied upon by trial counsel and referenced by appellate counsel. In Herring, the prosecutor made improper comments about defense counsel, including "'I chose this side and he chose that side. My people are victims. His people are rapists, murderers, robbers, child molesters. He has to tell them what to say. He has to help them plan a defense. He does not want you to hear the truth.'" (Herring, supra, at p. 1073.) With regard to the defendant, the prosecutor called him "'primal man in his most basic level.... He wouldn't know what love was. He's like a dog in heat....' 'This is primal man. He thinks all I have to do is put a little force on her. Women love this. Every man knows that....' 'He's like a parasite.'" (Id. at pp. 1073-1074.) The trial court sustained the defendant's objections and admonished the jury. (Id. at p. 1074) The appellate court found the admonition to the jury that it should disregard all remarks and that the only evidence the jury should consider was that derived from testimony on the witness stand, or evidence marked and received, was insufficient to cure the harm. (Id. at pp. 1074-1075.) Herring is distinguishable from this matter. The language and commentary in

Page 23