With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". prosecutor made the following statement, which Begay insists is a justification for a new trial: He knew exactly what he was doing. He intended to kill the occupants of the vehicle. That’s premeditation. He intended it. He was conscious of it. That’s first degree murder. The prosecutor did make a mistake in saying “that’s premeditation” right after she said “he intended to kill the occupants of the vehicle.” Intent is not the same thing as premeditation. But we consider the misstatement in context. The court properly instructed the jury on the correct definition, and an instruction carries more weight than an argument. Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 384-85, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990); see also Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225, 234, 120 S.Ct. 727, 145 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Plus, the prosecutor correctly stated the law

A: holding that jurors were presumed to follow instructions similar to those in the instant case
B: recognizing that jurors are presumed to follow instructions
C: holding that a jury is presumed to follow a judges instructions
D: holding that the law presumes that the jury will follow the courts instructions
C.