How have courts interpreted comments made by a prosecutor to the defense counsel regarding the burden of proof?

"Defense counsel's argument and the court's jury instructions unambiguously communicated to the jury that the prosecution had the burden of proving every element of the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The record does not demonstrate that the prosecution employed deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade the jury, and, in light of the entire record, there was no reasonable likelihood that the jury erroneously construed the prosecution's burden of proof." (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 842.)

In evaluating the prosecutor's remarks, "we must view the statements in the context of the argument as a whole." (People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 522.) The prosecutor's comments, in context, did not dilute the standard of proof. The prosecutor referenced the instruction that had been given by the trial court and correctly argued that the standard was "not absolute. It's not imaginary doubt and it's not based on speculation." Although in the abstract the reference to the standard "used in courtrooms every day" could seem to blend the civil and criminal standards, in context that is not how the argument would have been understood by the jury. Nor, in context, do we

Page 15