How have the courts treated the prosecution's argument about failing to call logical witnesses?

Assuming the prosecutor's argument about failing to call logical witnesses implied that defendant failed to testify, and was in fact Griffin error, the error was harmless. The court's immediate use of the curative instruction, as well as the re-reading of CALCRIM No. 355 reinforced to the jury the fact that the defendant did not have an obligation to testify, and any inference to that effect from the prosecutor was improper. We presume the jury followed the court's instruction. (People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 595). Therefore, given the curative instruction, and the prosecution evidence in this case, any misconduct was harmless.