What is the effect of a prosecutor's "objectionable comments" to a defendant in a criminal case?

Defendant fails to identify the specific objectionable comments made by the prosecutor. In the relevant facts and procedures presented by the defendant, he referred to the following argument by the prosecutor: "One of my jobs as a DA is to show you that this is real, to wake our community up to say, we can't turn a blind eye only because the witnesses aren't going to come forward. We still need to pursue justice. And we saw that. Fear, intimidation, the consequences of ratting, being a snitch. Howeverhowever, we have tools to combat this culture of silence. What tools do we have? We have basically you, our jurors, to see through that silence and to still seek the truth." There was no objection by counsel. Such failure to object waives the issue on appeal. (People v. Mendoza, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 705.) Moreover, it was reasonably implied that the witnesses recanted either for fear of being a "rat" or the consequences.

Defendant contends that if this court finds that he waived any claim of prosecutorial misconduct by failing to object, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel's failure to object did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Notwithstanding defendant's contention otherwise, defense counsel could have had a valid tactical reason for failing to object. (People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 202.) Moreover, as will be discussed post, the prosecutor's remarks did not constitute prejudicial misconduct to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Page 24