How did voir dire interpret the prosecution's argument that premeditating a murder is not a crime?

In determining how jurors likely understood the prosecution's argument, we do " ' "not lightly infer that a prosecutor intends an ambiguous remark to have its most damaging meaning or that a jury, sitting through lengthy exhortation, will draw that meaning from the plethora of less damaging interpretations." ' [Citations.]" (People v. Cortez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 131.) Even if some aspects of the statements made by the prosecutor in voir dire were not precise, the prosecutor who made closing argument distinguished the train example from premeditating a murder. We presume the jurors followed the instructions and see "no reasonable likelihood the jury construed or applied the prosecution's challenged remarks in an objectionable fashion." (Id. at pp. 133-134.)

Page 29