How have the courts treated the reasonable doubt standard in their closing arguments?

Defendant offers examples where a prosecutor trivializes the reasonable doubt standard by analogizing them to everyday decisions like changing lanes or getting married. (People v. Nguyen (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 28, 35-36.) But that is not what the prosecutor did during his rebuttal. The prosecutor acknowledged that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is rightfully the highest standard of proof in the country. But to demonstrate that the standard is not unobtainable, he simply pointed out the true fact that people are convicted in every state in the nation under this rigorous standard of proof. Thus, rather than trivializing the standard, he actually paid homage to its rigor, while at the same time tempering the impression the jury might have derived from defense counsel's closing argument that proof beyond a reasonable doubt was nearly impossible to achieve. His argument in no way implied that convicting a defendant of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt was comparable to "every day" decisions (ibid.) or in any other way improperly trivialized the standard of proof.