Can a defendant argue that the prosecutor misled the jury into believing imperfect self-defense requires a reasonable belief that lethal force was necessary?

In his subsection titled "Failure to Object," defendant attempts to demonstrate prejudice. The demonstration depends upon a finding that the prosecutor misled the jury into believing imperfect self-defense requires a reasonable belief that lethal force was necessary. Given that, defendant states he was prejudiced because the jury was precluded from considering voluntary manslaughter until after they had voted on murder. If the jury had understood imperfect self-defense, the argument goes, they would have convicted defendant of voluntary manslaughter if they did not have to consider murder first. In addition to being contrary to the facts, as outlined above, the argument is entirely speculative. Defendant's argument does not suffice to undermine the reliability of the jury's verdict. (Strickland v. Washington (1988) 466 U.S. 668, 694.)

We find no prejudice to defendant from the prosecutor's statements in argument.