What is the effect of a prosecutor's statement to a jury in a murder trial questioning the state's burden of proof?

There is no likelihood jurors would have interpreted the argument as appellant suggests. Appellant's reading of the prosecutor's words is strained. The prosecutor did not "engage in such forbidden tactics as accusing defense counsel of fabricating a defense or factually deceiving the jury." (People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1154, disapproved on another ground by People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22; People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 559-560.) Fairly read, the prosecutor stated only that the defense recognized the evidence was incompatible with a complete acquittal - which was, in fact, precisely what defense counsel argued. These statements did not impugn defense counsel's integrity or suggest he believed appellant was guilty of murder. Contrary to appellant's conclusory contention, nothing about the prosecutor's statements lightened the state's burden of proof.