In a moment of levity during a break between witnesses, Judge Arthur Engoron noted that Trump attorney Chris Kise has not yet led the questioning of any witnesses.

"How come you don't get the pleasure of questioning people?" Engoron asked.

"There's still time left," Kise responded, saying that he prefers to coach his team from the sideline like famed New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick or Jimbo Fisher.

Fisher received a record buyout after being fired as coach of Texas A&M this week.

"I'd like to be fired from my job and collecting $77 million," Kise quipped.

"I'll see if I can arrange that," Engoron joked.

Steven Collins, an expert in contract procurement, testified that the federal government's General Services Administration -- which reviewed Donald Trump's proposal to renovate the Old Post Office in Washington, D.C. -- identified issues in Donald Trump's statement of financial condition.

"Financial statements provided by Mr. Trump was qualified by his accountants as not complying with GAAP" or generally accepted accounting principles, a GSA document entered into evidence said about a "notable weakness" of Trump's proposal.

However, said Collins, Trump's financial capability as reflected in the statements comprised no more than 15% of the evaluation factors considered by the GSA, which more heavily weighed Trump's site plan and financial offer in ultimately deciding to award Trump the contract.

Collins testified for roughly an hour for the defense and faced no questions during cross-examination.

State attorney Kevin Wallace, in his redirect examination of the defense's expert witness Jason Flemmons, asked the accounting expert a single question.

"When you were at the Securities and Exchange Commission, did you ever encounter issuers facing allegations of fraud [try] to throw their accountants under the bus?" Wallace asked, in an apparent jab at the defense's contention that the responsibility for Donald Trump's financial statements lies with his accountants.

Trump's lawyers quickly objected to the question. Judge Engoron, visibly smirking, sustained the objection.

Earlier, when asked by Judge Engoron about his compensation for serving as an expert witness, Flemmons said he was unable to estimate the total amount but that his hourly rate was $925 per hour. Michiel McCarty, who testified as an expert witness for the state, testified earlier this month that he charged a similar rate.

The defense's accounting expert, Jason Flemmons, testified that the process of determining the estimated value of a property could result in a range of values "no one of which is the right or wrong answer."

The assertion from Flemmons supports the defense's long-standing argument that performing valuations such as the ones listed on Donald Trump's statements of financial condition is more akin to an art than a science.

"Estimated current value is not an exact science. There is not one single correct value that comes of this exercise," Flemmons said.

Flemmons testified that insofar as Trump used an approved method to determine value, and disclosed that method, the value would be appropriate.

"You are communicating that to the user and allowing that user to be in a position to agree or disagree," Flemmons said.

State attorney Kevin Wallace has concluded his cross-examination of Flemmons, allowing defense lawyer Jesus Suarez to begin his redirect examination of the accounting expert.

Defense attorney Chris Kise requested that Judge Engoron again reconsider his decision to fine Donald Trump $10,000 for violating the case's limited gag order yesterday, offering a broader criticism of the gag order based on First Amendment grounds.

"This is open, public, and the defendant has a First Amendment right to comment on what he sees and perceives as a potential source of bias," Kise said.

Like yesterday, Kise maintained that Trump was referring to Michael Cohen, rather than the judge's law clerk, during his hallway statement in which he said the judge has a "person who is very partisan sitting alongside of him." Trump attested to this on the stand yesterday, though Engoron found that Trump was "not credible."

"The review of the statement does not support the sanction," Kise said.

Even if Trump was referring to the clerk, Kise made a broader argument that the gag order itself was "constitutionally infirm," considering Trump is the "leading candidate" for the presidency.

"I don't think that the order survives constitutional scrutiny," Kise said.

State attorney Andrew Amer argued in support of the gag order, which he said was narrowly limited to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

"A federal judge in D.C. has issued a similar order to protect herself," Amer added, referring to a ruling in Trump's election interference case.

Judge Engoron said he would reconsider the fine but stood by his gag order.