How have courts dealt with misconduct by a prosecuting attorney in a criminal case?

The challenged remarks of the prosecutor went far beyond the scope of legitimate argument. The challenged questions were argumentative and were designed to prejudice the jury against appellant. "The prosecuting attorney may well be assumed to be a (person) of fair standing before the jury, and the members thereof may well have thought that he could prove the innuendo contained in the improper questions and the claims he made in his argument concerning the characteristics of the defendant." (People v. Duvernay (1941) 43 Cal.App.2d 823, 828, 111 P.2d 659.)

[126 Cal.App.3d 742] On some occasions of misconduct, the trial judge sustained objections and mildly admonished the jury. At other times, no objection was made. We agree with appellant's contention that comments by the prosecutor were so damaging that timely objections and admonitions would not have cured the harm, especially such mild admonitions as were given by the trial judge. (See People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 34, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468.)

"Fewer judgments would have to be reversed if the trial courts were more firm in controlling the comparatively few prosecutors who need restraint." (People v. Ford (1948) 89 Cal.App.2d 467, 472, 200 P.2d 867.) For a suggested admonition, see People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 214, 152 Cal.Rptr. 141, 589 P.2d 396.