What is the current state of the law on the conduct of attorneys in closing argument?

"In conducting closing argument, attorneys for both sides have wide latitude to discuss the case. '"'"The right of counsel to discuss the merits of a case, both as to the law and facts, is very wide, and he has the right to state fully his views as to what the evidence shows and as to the conclusions to be fairly drawn therefrom. . . ."'" [Citations.] . . . . "An attorney is permitted to argue all reasonable inferences from the evidence, . . ." [Citation.] "Only the most persuasive reasons justify handcuffing attorneys in the exercise of their advocacy within the bounds of propriety." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 780, 795 (Cassim).) On the other hand, attorneys commit misconduct during closing argument if they assume facts not in evidence, invite the jury to speculate, make derogatory remarks about opposing counsel, or appeal to the jury's self-interest or to its personal passions and prejudices. (Id. at p. 796.)

Attorney misconduct does not become reversible error unless it results in prejudice, that is a "'miscarriage of justice,'" which the court determines "'"after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence."'" A miscarriage of justice occurs when it is "'reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.'" (Cassim, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 800, quoting People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818.)

Page 10