How have the courts interpreted statements of counsel at trial?

^23. Appellant argues the trial court's responses to his objections below defeats the presumption that the jury follows instructions. Appellant points to the trial court's admonishment, in response to one objection, that statements of counsel are not evidence. However, in response to a later objection, the court stated the evidence "was offered only . . . to show what the subsequent acts and what the police officers were looking [for], the intent of the police officers; not for the truth of the matter stated." Moreover, the prosecutor informed the jury he was relying on the identification solely of the three eyewitnesses. People v. Lloyd (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 49, in which "the prosecutor misstated the law with the effect of lightening her burden of proof, defense counsel objected, and the court overruled the objection," is inapposite. (Id. at p. 63; see also ibid. ["In failing to cure the misstatement of law, the court placed its considerable weight behind the misstatement. In such a situation the court gives the jury two conflicting legal interpretations. Under these circumstances, we may not presume the jury followed the court's instruction when the court also signaled to the jury the prosecutor's misstatements of law were correct."].)