Is it improper vouching when a prosecutor's comments about the plea deals offered to witnesses before the jury are not disclosed to the jury?

"Impermissible vouching occurs when prosecutors [seek] to bolster their case "by invoking their personal prestige, reputation, or depth of experience, or the prestige or reputation of their office, in support of it." [Citation.] Similarly, it is misconduct "to suggest that evidence available to the government, but not before the jury, corroborates the testimony of a witness." " (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1207, 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 521, 302 P.3d 927.) The prosecutor's comments about the deals offered the witnesses did not suffer from these vices.

In fact, the nature of the plea deals was the proper subject of disclosure to the jury. "[T]he existence of a plea agreement is relevant impeachment evidence that must be disclosed to the defense because it bears on the witness's credibility. [Citation.] ... [W]hen an accomplice testifies for the prosecution, full disclosure of any agreement affecting the witness is required to ensure that the jury has a complete picture of the factors affecting the witness's credibility. " (People v. Fauber (1992) 2 Cal.4th 792, 821, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 24, 831 P.2d 249 ; People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 337, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 160 P.3d 84.) The prosecutor's comments were not "vouching" and the objections were properly overruled.