Can counsel discuss the presumption of innocence in the context of the trial court's instructions?

Even if counsel's discussion of the presumption of innocence could be characterized as incompetent, the trial court's instructions eliminated the possibility of prejudice. "Jurors are presumed to understand and follow the court's instructions." (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 662.) The court here expressly instructed the jury that the court's instructions were controlling, and that counsel's argument must be disregarded to the extent it differed from the instructions. The court then instructed that defendant was presumed innocent until the contrary was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, the court expressly instructed the jury that they had the duty not just to decide the case, but rather, to do so "only after discussing the evidence and the instructions with the other jurors." Defense counsel's argument that the presumption of innocence continued into the jury room did not undercut the thrust of these instructions. Defendant cannot show serious error in counsel's argument or any possibility that he suffered prejudice as a result.