What is the test for misconduct in the criminal justice system?

(1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 567.) " 'While counsel is accorded "great latitude [during] argument . . . " argument, [he or she] may not assume or state facts not in evidence [citation] or mischaracterize the evidence.' " (People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 249.)

In determining whether a prosecutor's allegedly improper remark constitutes misconduct, we must view the statement in the context of the argument as a whole. (People v. Dennis, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 522.)

When a misconduct claim focuses on comments the prosecutor made before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury construed or applied any of the comments in an objectionable fashion. (People v. Cole, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 1202-1203.) "A defendant's conviction will not be reversed for prosecutorial misconduct . . . unless it is reasonably probable a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached without the misconduct." (People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 839.)

2. Ineffective assistance of counsel

"To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, [Brodie] bears the burden of showing [both] that counsel's performance was deficient, falling below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms[, and that] it is reasonably probable that the verdict would have been more favorable to him [absent counsel's error]." (See People v. Hernandez (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, 1052-1053.)

"We presume that counsel rendered adequate assistance and exercised reasonable professional judgment in making significant trial decisions." (People v. Holt (1997) 15

Page 32