What is the current state of the law on allowing defense attorneys to argue further on factual matters after the jury retired to deliberate?

We think this caution applies with equal force to the placement of attorneys in such a role. Allowing the attorneys to argue further on factual matters after the jury retired to deliberate, over defense objection, was akin to allowing a witness to provide an opinion as to how to weigh evidence presented, which is categorically proscribed. Cf. United States v. Stephens, 73 F.2d 695, 703 (9th Cir.1934) (A hypothetical question which calls upon a witness to determine the credibility of other witnesses or to pass upon conflicts in the testimony invades the province of the jury, whose duty it is to determine where the truth lay in cases of conflicts in the evidence. (citing Dexter v. Hall, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 9, 21 L.Ed. 73 (1873))).¹⁰