Is a defense counsel's closing argument on the outcome of the first trial irrelevant or improper?

A trial court in a criminal case "'must be and is given great latitude in . . . limiting the scope of closing summations.'" (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1184.)

Here, closing defense argument on the outcome of the first trial, which ended with a mistrial on the burglary count, would have been both irrelevant and improper. "It is axiomatic that counsel may not state or assume facts in argument that are not in evidence." (People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 102.) In this case, as the prosecutor correctly argued, no evidence regarding the outcome of the first trial had been presented and, thus, any argument by defense counsel on that issue would be improper. The court's limitation on defense counsel's closing argument was well within the court's broad discretion.