In People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, the prosecutor recited three quotations about lawyers: "'"Lawyers and painters can soon change white to black. Danish Proverb." "If there were no bad people there would be no good lawyers. Charles Dickens." "There is no better way of exercising the imagination than the study of law. No poet ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer interprets truth." Jean Giraudoux, 1935.'" (Id. at p. 1216.) Defense counsel did not object to these quotations. (Ibid.) Defense counsel, however, did object to the prosecutor's use of the fourth quotation, which was "'"you're an attorney. It's your duty to lie, conceal and distort everything and slander everybody."'" (Ibid.) The trial court sustained the objection and admonished the jury that it "'would be entirely inappropriate and a violation of their ethical standards and duties to lie in court.'" (Ibid.) The prosecutor then recited a quotation from Shakespeare: "'In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt but being seasoned with a gracious voice, obscures the show of evil.'" (Ibid.) Defense counsel did not object. (Ibid.) Gionis held that the defendant's failure to object to four of the five quotations forfeited the issue of prosecutorial misconduct on appeal. (Ibid.) However, the court also addressed the merits and concluded that "the prosecutor's remarks simply pointed out that attorneys are schooled in the art of persuasion; they did not improperly imply that defense counsel was lying ." (Ibid.) As to the fourth quotation, the court held that the prosecutor's comment was improper, but that the trial court's admonition cured any prejudice. (Id. at pp. 1216-1217.) In People v. Gionis (1995) the prosecutor commented in final summation that defense counsel "was arguing out of both sides of his mouth . . . and that this was an example of 'great lawyering' which 'doesn't change the facts, it just makes them sound good.'" (Gionis, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 1215-1216.) The prosecutor also read a number of quotations regarding attorneys which strongly suggested that attorneys' jobs required lying, deceit, and distortion. (Id. at p. 1216.) The court concluded that "taken in context, the prosecutor's remarks simply pointed out that attorneys are schooled in the art of persuasion; they did not improperly imply that defense counsel was lying." (Ibid.) It noted that statements that indicated "defense counsel was expected and permitted by law to disregard the truth in defense of his client," clearly would constitute misconduct, but "here, however, the quotations did not seek to distinguish between the roles of the prosecutor and defense counsel and did not imply that counsel was offering a dishonest defense. In the context of this case, we are satisfied that the remarks properly served to remind the jury to focus on the relevant evidence and to not be swayed by argument alone." (Id. at p. 1217, fn. 13.)