Is it improper for a prosecutor to imply that Page 14 defense counsel fabricated evidence?

Appellant argues that the challenged remarks sent a message that defense counsel knowingly presented false and perjured testimony and in essence accused counsel of perjury. (See People v. Sandoval (1992) 4 Cal.4th 155, 183-184 [the court held it was "'improper for the prosecutor to imply that defense counsel has fabricated evidence'" and that casting "'aspersions on defense counsel directs attention to largely irrelevant matters and does not constitute comment on the evidence or argument as to inferences to be drawn therefrom.'"].)

"'The prosecutor is permitted to urge, in colorful terms, that defense witnesses are not entitled to credence [and] to argue on the basis of inference from the evidence that a defense is fabricated.'" (People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 863.) "When supported by the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom, argument that testimony or a defense is 'fabricated' may not, without more, be properly characterized as an attempt to impugn the honesty and integrity of defense counsel." (People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1303, fn. 49.) A prosecutor has wide latitude in describing the deficiencies in opposing counsel's tactics and factual account, but an unsupported implication that

Page 14

defense counsel fabricated a defense constitutes misconduct. (People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 171.)