in the record. . . . Statements as to facts that have not been proven amount to unsworn testimony, which is not the subject of proper closing argument.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alexander, supra, 254 Conn. 306. We focus on the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument in which he stated that during “a large portion of this trial I was kind of burnt out on what was going on. I was having a hard time focusing.” The prosecutor also remarked that he “probably should have asked [A] why she didn’t scream.” The prosecutor’s own physical or mental condition, the questions that he should have asked, and a lawyer’s trial strategy generally are not permissible subjects of closing argument. See Spiess v. Traversa, 172 Conn. 525, 527, 375 A.2d 1007 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Archambeault v. Jamelle, 100 Conn. 690,
holding on habeas review that counsels failure to object to improper argument at trial did not prejudice petitioner where other evidence supported a guilty verdict and the jury was told closing argument was not evidence holding prosecutors argument that defense counsels goal was to keep evidence from the jury was improper holding improper counsels argument that plaintiff was entitled to something for manner in which defense was conducted holding defense counsels rates to be an improper starting point in determining plaintiff counsels reasonable hourly rate holding improper counsels argument that opposing counsel knew why plaintiff delayed in bringing action where opposing counsels knowledge was not in evidence