In what circumstances would a jury interpret a response from the Attorney General in response to a question of burden of proof?

Under these circumstances, we do not see how the jury would understand this as shifting the burden of proof to the defense. We assume the jury understood the response to mean that the prosecution always had the burden of proof. (See People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 689, fn. 17 ["The crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury is that jurors generally understand and faithfully follow instructions"].)