In what circumstances will the Attorney General claim that the Defendant failed to object to the Defendant's conduct at trial?

As an initial matter, the Attorney General contends these claims are forfeited, as defense counsel failed to object at trial to virtually all of the conduct defendant now challenges. We agree. "'In order to preserve a claim of misconduct, a defendant must make a timely objection and request an admonition; only if an admonition would not have cured the harm is the claim of misconduct preserved for review.' [Citation.]" (People v. Williams, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 671.) Because a timely objection and admonition could have cured any misconduct alleged, defendant may not raise these objections for the first time on appeal. To the extent defendant claims he did object, or that his objection would have been futile, we disagree and address those issues further below.

Defendant attempts to avoid forfeiture by arguing the failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. We note that a decision to raise or forgo an objection during the heat of trial is generally a matter of trial tactics and we will not "attempt to second-guess trial counsel" except in rare cases. (People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d

Page 34