In a circumstantial evidence case, in what circumstances will the defense counsel's performance be deficient?

With regard to whether defense counsel's performance was deficient, we reiterate that it is not our role to second guess tactical decisions about how to argue the case to the jury. (People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 219.) Here, in a circumstantial evidence case, defense counsel chose to focus on whether the prosecution and defense theories were reasonable. And the thrust of her argument was that the prosecution's theory was unreasonable. She emphasized that the jury must vote not guilty in such a case, irrespective of whether the defense theory was also unreasonable. This argument was rational in light of the tactical decision to focus on the unreasonableness of the prosecution's theory of the case. And, although defense counsel neglected to mention that each fact supporting a particular theory must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, she elsewhere addressed the prosecution's burden of proof in her closing argument. We are not persuaded that defense counsel's closing argument, taken in its entirety, was deficient.

Page 21