In People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, the prosecutor argued in rebuttal that "the People had provided a 'rational explanation' why defendant was seen with a handgun by several persons at the times of the various robberies (namely, that defendant was armed for the purpose of committing robberies on those occasions), and then asked rhetorically, 'Where was defense counsel's rational explanation? How does he explain away the evidence . . . .?'" (Id. at pp. 755-756.) The prosecutor then urged the jury to "reject unreasonable interpretations of the evidence 'even if counsel had given us one, which he didn't.'" (Id. at p. 756.) And with respect to witnesses who testified to seeing the defendant in possession of both a weapon and a green Maverick, "the prosecutor observed, 'and none of this evidence was explained. Nobody on the defense side -- excuse me, the defense attorney did not explain this evidence and how it pointed to some other rational conclusion, because it doesn't, and he can't.'" (Ibid.) The California Supreme Court found it to be "apparent" that no prejudicial Griffin error occurred because "the prosecutor's comments were directed to the general failure of the defense to provide an innocent explanation as to why defendant was armed, and in possession of the Maverick, at the time of the robberies. These remarks contained no references, express or implied, to defendant's own silence, and therefore were unobjectionable." (Ibid.)