Is a defendant's failure to object at trial to references to misconduct in the criminal justice system invalid?

"We begin by noting that defendant failed to object at trial to any of these references. Where, as here, the defendant failed to object below, the initial question to be decided is whether a timely objection and admonition would have cured the harm. If it would, the contention must be rejected; if it would not, then and only then must we reach the issue of whether the harm resulted in a miscarriage of justice. [Citation.] [] In this case, defendant's failure to object bars review since any harm as to each of the cited instances could have been cured by a timely objection and admonition." (People v. Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 575-576.) Here, defendant's claims are of the sort that can readily be cured by a trial court's admonition, if it concludes the argument is improper. Therefore, the failure to object forfeits the claims. Contrary to defendant's view, the cited instances of misconduct were not "pervasive" such that an objection would have been futile.

Further, the prosecutor committed no error. We address defendant's three claims separately.