How has the reasonable doubt standard been interpreted in cases involving spilled juice?

The prosecutor's statements must be considered in context. (People v. Lopez (2008) 42 Cal.4th 960, 971 (Lopez); People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 446.) The prosecutor initially told her spilled juice story in the context of explaining circumstantial evidence, not the reasonable doubt standard. The prosecutor's focus on the reasonableness of the conclusion that the jury should reach was consistent with the requirement explained in the jury instructions that the jury should accept only reasonable conclusions from circumstantial evidence.³ Her niece story was itself consistent with this requirement. The story illustrated that the only reasonable conclusion from the hypothetical facts was that the niece spilled the juice, not that someone else magically appeared and caused the spill to occur.