In what circumstances will a prosecutor be found guilty of misconduct in a criminal case for improper questioning and misrepresentation to the jury of a witness?

Nor may a prosecutor " 'place the prestige of [her] office behind a witness by offering the impression that [she] has taken steps to assure a witness's truthfulness at trial.' " (People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 215.) Rather, a prosecutor's assurances regarding the apparent honestyor dishonestyof a witness must be based on the " ' "facts of [the] record and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, rather than any purported personal knowledge or belief" . . . .' " (Ibid.)

Here, the prosecutor's questioning and argument took improper advantage of her position as a representative of the government to insist upon defendant's guilt in a case in which defendant vehemently denied committing any crimes. Moreover, as we will discuss in detail below, the case against him was largely about credibility, and the two primary witnessesdefendant and N.J.both admitted lying about a multitude of relevant facts. The fact that the jury deliberated at least seven more days after being reconstituted with an alternate juror before reaching a guilty verdict underscores the closeness of this case. (See People v. Rucker (1980) 26 Cal.3d 368, 391.) Accordingly, we agree with defendant the prosecutor's dirty-cop remark and misrepresentation regarding their plea discussions in front of the jury constituted clear misconduct.