In Griffin v. California (1965), a case involving the rape and murder of a woman in a dark alley, the Supreme Court considered whether the following arguments by the prosecutor constituted prosecutorial misconduct and violated the defendant's rights:

"The defendant certainly knows whether Essie Mae had this beat-up appearance at the time he left her apartment and went down the alley with her... ."

"He would know that. He would know how she got down the alley. He would know how the blood got on the bottom of the concrete steps. He would know how long he was with her in that box. He would know how her wig got off. He would know whether he beat her or mistreated her. He would know whether he walked away from that place cool as a cucumber when he saw Mr. Villasenor because he was conscious of his own guilt and wanted to get away from that damaged or injured woman.”

"These things he has not seen fit to take the stand and deny or explain."

"And in the whole world, if anybody would know, this defendant would know."

"Essie Mae is dead, she can't tell you her side of the story. The defendant won't."

Do you think the prosecutor committed misconduct in making this argument?