Does a prosecutor improperly ask whether defense counsel had access to the cellphone to have an expert examine it?

The prosecutor did not engage in prejudicial misconduct. There is no reasonable likelihood that the jurors would have understood the prosecutor's questions as implying that defendant had the burden of producing evidence. (See People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1196.) Instead, the questions properly asked whether defense counsel had been provided access to the cellphone to have an expert examine it. (See People v. Cook 2006) 39 Cal.4th 566, 607 [a prosecutor's question asking whether the defense had the opportunity to independently test evidence does not suggest that the defense had a duty to do independent testing or shift the burden of proof].)