How have courts treated arguments of counsel in the context of the reasonable doubt standard and presumption of innocence?

Furthermore, "arguments of counsel 'generally carry less weight with a jury than do instructions from the court.'" (People v. Mendoza (2007) 42 Cal.4th 686, 703.) "When argument runs counter to instructions given a jury, we will ordinarily conclude that the jury followed the latter and disregarded the former, for '[w]e presume that jurors treat the court's instructions as a statement of the law by a judge, and the prosecutor's comments as words spoken by an advocate in an attempt to persuade.'" (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 717.) Here, the jury was correctly instructed on the reasonable doubt standard and presumption of innocence, and it was cautioned, "If anything concerning the law said by the attorneys in their arguments or at any other time during the trial conflicts with my instructions on the law, you must follow my instructions." There is no reason to believe the jury was misled by the prosecutor's statement or disregarded the pattern instructions on reasonable doubt.