California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Smith, B283278 (Cal. App. 2019):
a defense argument, and "it is neither unusual nor improper to comment on the failure to call logical witnesses." (People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275.) Moreover, the jury had the video and could draw its own conclusion about the involvement of the car or the individuals associated with it.
Defendant argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's misstatement of law and references to facts outside the record. We disagree. To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687.) The deficient performance component requires a showing that "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" "under prevailing professional norms." (Id. at p. 688.) Defendant cannot make that showing here because the conduct to which he claims his counsel should have objected was not impermissible.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.