How have courts interpreted the language in a jury trial where probable cause is a prerequisite for an arrest and trial?

Here, the challenged language was fair and evenhanded. While it stated probable cause is a prerequisite for an arrest and trial, it also reminded the prospective jurors an arrest is not evidence of guilt, and all defendants are presumed innocent. In other words, while there must be some justification to bring a person to trial, jurors must put that out of their mind and start with the presumption of innocence once the trial begins. That is not a particularly difficult concept to comprehend. In this regard, we must remember that "jurors are presumed to be intelligent and capable of understanding and applying the court's instructions. [Citation.]" (People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 940.) There is nothing in the record suggesting the jury was biased against appellant or failed to decide the case in a fair and impartial manner.