Is there any case law where the prosecutor referred to the defense expert either as a hired gun or a paid expert?

Defendant's brief adverts to 10 instances in which the prosecutor referred to the defense expert either as a hired gun or a paid expert, or in one instance referencing "[r]easonable doubt for a reasonable fee." Notably, defendant fails to identify any objection to this argument. He does, however, refer to his motion for new trial in which the failure to object was identified as ineffective assistance of counsel, because this argument allowed defense counsel to be portrayed as a participant in the presentation of false evidence through the expert. The trial court concluded, however, that the characterizations were well within the latitude allowed the prosecution for harsh and colorful attacks on a defense expert without impugning defense counsel, citing People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 161-162 (asserting defense expert bent principle for money)

Page 8

and People v. Sandoval (1992) 4 Cal.4th 155, 180 (calling defense expert a liar), 184 (attacking defense counsel's character directly) as examples. Even if this argument did amount to misconduct, the trial court could not discern any resulting prejudice.