What are the implications of a prosecutor's statement to the jury that defendant was presumed to be innocent?

instructions." It further instructed that defendant was "presumed to be innocent," which "presumption requires that the People prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . [] . . . [] Unless the evidence proves the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they are entitled to an acquittal and you must find them not guilty." The court also told the jury it was required to accept reasonable conclusions consistent with innocence over reasonable conclusions consistent with guilt, and that neither side was required to call all witnesses who might have information about the case or to produce all physical evidence that was relevant. Jurors are presumed able to understand, correlate and follow the court's instructions. (People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852.) Nothing here rebuts this presumption. Whatever the implications of the prosecutor's remarkswhich, again, we conclude was proper argumentthe court's instructions made clear to the jury its obligation to convict defendant only if the prosecution presented evidence proving he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That the jury followed these instructions is further confirmed by its acquittal of defendant of the robbery and grand theft charges. There was no reasonable likelihood the jury applied the prosecutor's remarks in an objectionable fashion.