What is the effect of a prosecutor's closing argument impugning the integrity of defense counsel?

unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.' " ' [Citations.] In addition, ' "a defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct unless in a timely fashionand on the same groundthe defendant made an assignment of misconduct and requested that the jury be admonished to disregard the impropriety. [Citation.]" ' [Citation.] Objection may be excused if it would have been futile or an admonition would not have cured the harm." (People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 760.)

Where properly preserved, allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed, on the merits, de novo. (See People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 681.)

As an initial matter, we note that appellant failed to object to the alleged vouching by the prosecutor. Appellant's arguments have thus been forfeited on this ground. (People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1219.) We find, however, appellant's express objection that the prosecutor was misstating testimony was sufficient to preserve the allegation of impugning defense counsel's integrity. Although not expertly stated, counsel's objection is sufficient to suggest the misstated facts were the alleged implication defense counsel was involved in the stories changing. As explained below, however, both of appellant's claims of error are also meritless.

Looking first at the contention the prosecutor's closing argument impugned the integrity of defense counsel, we see no error. It is true that a "prosecutor commits misconduct if he or she attacks the integrity of defense counsel, or casts aspersions on defense counsel." (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 832.) But mere references to the existence of defense counsel, or their basic role in the trial, are not necessarily indicative of an attack on counsel's integrity. Indeed, in the context of this case, the references to defense counsel pointed to on appeal do not implicitly or explicitly attack the credibility of counsel. Rather, in context, the attacks are to the credibility of the victim. While it is true that the prosecutor noted defense counsel would ask the jury to

Page 7