Using the closing argument to fight the in limines and to suggest what had been excluded

In  STATE v. CIFUENTES-VICENTE, the Court of Appeals of Washington upheld two $250 sanctions against criminal defense counsel for suggesting to the jury what they might have heard if the judge hadn't excluded certain lines of questioning and for speaking objections.  The opinion has extended transcripts of what counsel said, so the case might be useful for discussing the ethics of trial rhetoric.  ("[Counsel] said [to the jury] that she was unable to bring out motivations of the accusers 'because of the rules of this court.'")