Can a prosecutor ask a defendant whether he ever done a favor for a judge?

Pendleton asserts that the mere asking of this question amounted to egregious prosecutorial misconduct. A claim of prosecutorial misconduct must be viewed in the entire context of the trial. United States v. Christophe, 833 F.2d 1296, 1300 (9th Cir.1987). To gain reversal because of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must show that: (1) the prosecutor erred; (2) the issue was preserved for appeal; and (3) the error was prejudicial. United States v. Berry, 627 F.2d 193, 196-197 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1113 (1981). We give "considerable deference to the trial court's view" in determining whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred. United States v. McWilliams, 730 F.2d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Tham, 665 F.2d 855, 860 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 944 (1982).

It is improper to ask a defendant a question on cross-examination where the prosecutor has no knowledge of any facts that would demonstrate the truth of the matter insinuated or suggested in the inquiry. United States v. Tham, 665 F.2d at 861. In United States v. Tham, the prosecutor asked the defendant whether he had had conversations with a state judge before another trial in which the defendant had been acquitted. The prosecutor then asked the defendant whether he had ever done a favor for the state judge. Despite an objection, the prosecutor asked a second question concerning the performance of favors for a judge. Id. Because the prosecutor had no basis for these questions, we held that the government was guilty of misconduct. Id.