What is the impact of a defense attorney's tactical strategy in their closing argument?

client, and deference to counsel's tactical decisions in his closing presentation is particularly important because of the broad range of legitimate defense strategy at that stage. Closing argument should 'sharpen and clarify the issues for resolution by the trier of fact' [citation], but which issues to sharpen and how best to clarify them are questions with many reasonable answers." (Yarborough v. Gentry (2003) 540 U.S. 1, 5-6.) The decision of how to argue to the jury after the presentation of evidence is inherently tactical and "rarely demonstrates incompetence" (People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 498), and our judicial review of a defense attorney's summation is "highly deferential" (Yarborough v. Gentry, supra, at p. 6.)

Trial counsel's decision here to try and create reasonable doubt by highlighting certain aspects of the prosecution's case, and not to focus on the coconspirators' statements was a matter of trial tactics and strategy that we do not " 'second-guess.' " (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 219.) Furthermore, because there was evidence, independent of the coconspirators' hearsay statements, to establish a prima facie existence of a conspiracy to commit home invasion robbery, appellant has not shown there is a reasonable probability he would have obtained a more favorable verdict had trial counsel made the argument he now urges.