How have the courts treated allegations of misconduct by the District Attorney in a motion for a new trial?

In this connection, it will be recalled that the trial judge denied motions for a new trial on behalf of each defendant. In the course of announcing his ruling on these motions, he stated, 'I am satisfied that the defendants have had a fair trial and, of course, the jury has spoken.' In this procedural context it may properly be said that 'the trial court considered such contention [asserted misconduct of the District Attorney] at the time of denying the motion for a new trial. It has a broad discretion in determining whether questions or other conduct of counsel caused prejudice.' (People v. Pearson, 111 Cal.App.2d 9, 21, 244 P.2d 35, 45.) It is apparent that the trial court acted well within its discretion in impliedly holding that the conduct of the prosecutor did not prejudicially affect the rights of the defendants and that they had a fair trial.