What constitutes prosecutorial misconduct in a criminal case?

Defendant's prosecutorial misconduct argument is similar to one we rejected in People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 759, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 906 P.2d 2, where we stated: "Finally, defendant contends the prosecutor demeaned defense counsel's integrity by observing that `any experienced defense attorney can twist a little, poke a little, try to draw some speculation, try to get you to buy something ....' In our view, the prosecutor's foregoing argument was unobjectionable. To observe that an experienced defense counsel will attempt to `twist' and `poke' at the prosecution's case does not amount to a personal attack on counsel's integrity. [Citations.]"

We think the prosecutor's comments in the present case, referring to defense "tricks" or "moves" used to demonstrate a witness's confusion or uncertainty, fall within the same category as that in Medina, involving no improper personal attack on defense counsel's integrity. We observe that, with the exception of People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673, involving pervasive and egregious prosecutorial misconduct affecting

[113 Cal.Rptr.2d 835]

all phases of trial, none of the "personal attack" cases cited by defendant found reversible misconduct.

[113 Cal.Rptr.2d 835]