What is the state of the evidence in the context of a prosecutor's argument in a civil case?

In context, the prosecutor's argument reasonably reflects the state of the evidencethat after scientific evaluation of the crime scene evidence for identifying information, defendant was the only suspect identified. Nor did the prosecutor ever represent that the police investigation was flawless or vouch for it. Rather, her argument was a valid comment on the state of the evidence. (See People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 522 [must take prosecution's arguments in context, and absent deceptive or reprehensible methods of persuasion, no misconduct].)

The prosecutor did not improperly place on defendant the burden of proving some other suspect existed and committed the crime, or undermine defendant's choice to remain silent at trial. (See Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [prosecutor may not comment on defendant's choice to invoke right to not testify].) Essentially, the prosecutor argued that after testing of the available crime scene evidence, there was no evidence of other leads. This was a fair characterization. (See People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 36 ["The deputy district attorney's comment that there was 'not a shred of

Page 16