What is the People's burden to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

presumed to be innocent," that the People must "prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," and that jurors "must find" defendant and Bernal not guilty "[u]nless the evidence proves [them] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Later in its preargument instructions, the court reemphasized numerous timesin connection with the jurors' consideration of defendant's pretrial statements, proof of first degree murder, proof of attempted murder, and proof of enhancement allegationsthat it was the People's burden to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." The first time it set forth the People's burden, the court added: "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt." The court later submitted these instructions to the jury in writing to refer to during deliberations. As we have explained, "[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. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 663, fn. 8, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 564, 828 P.2d 705.) "[P]rosecutorial commentary should not be given undue weight in analyzing how a reasonable jury understood ... instructions. Juries are warned in advance that counsel's remarks are mere argument, missteps can be challenged when they occur, and juries generally understand that counsel's assertions are the statements of advocates. Thus, argument should not be

[63 Cal.4th 132]