How have the courts interpreted the law on proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Similarly here, during his closing argument, the prosecutor also referred to CALCRIM No. 220, which instructed the jury that "[p]roof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true." Shortly after the prosecutor made his complained-of comments, the court admonished the jury that they should follow precisely the language of the instruction on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The written instruction was correct. "We presume the jury followed the court's instructions." (People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 573-574.) Thus, the error, if any, was harmless.

Page 20