How have the courts instructed the jury that "nothing that the attorneys say is evidence" in their opening and closing statements?

In any event, the trial court instructed the jury that "[u]nless the evidence proves the [d]efendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is entitled to an acquittal and you must find him not guilty." The court then emphasized that "[n]othing that the attorneys say is evidence," and further cautioned the jury that in their opening and closing statements, counsel "discuss the case, but their remarks are not evidence." Given the court's instructions, the jury was adequately informed that nothing the attorneys said could be relied upon as evidence in deciding whether defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We presume not only that the jurors were able to understand and correlate the instructions, but also that they followed the court's instructions. (People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852.)