What is the current state of the law on "innocuous comments of wonderment and curiosity" about a defendant's failure to testify?

"'"Transitory comments of wonderment and curiosity" about a defendant's failure to testify, although technically misconduct, "are normally innocuous . . . ." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 59.) "It may often be the case, though, that juror comments that go beyond mere wonderment and curiosity may need stronger affirmative evidence such as a reminder of the court's instructions not to consider the forbidden topic to show that prejudice does not exist." (People v. Lavender, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 690.)

The evidence here showed no more than such "transitory comments of wonderment and curiosity." Juror No. 5 described the discussion as asking "[W]hy didn't he stand up for himself and . . . defend himself?" Juror No. 9 specifically described it as expressing "just curiosity." Neither of them recalled any statement that the jurors should draw an adverse inference from defendant's failure to testify. We conclude that such a discussion was "innocuous." (See People v. Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1370, 1425 [presumption of prejudice was rebutted where discussion of defendant's failure to testify was brief and did not involve drawing negative inferences].)