The due diligence conducted by the Trump Organization's insurance company amounted to nothing more than "airballs and witchcraft," according to the defense's underwriting expert Gary Giulietti.

Giulietti's testimony appeared to cast doubt on the extent to which the Zurich Insurance Group scrutinized Trump's financial documents that are at the center of the case.

In a deposition that was played earlier in court, Zurich insurance underwriter Claudia Mouradian said she relied on assurances that the Trump Organization's $6 billion in assets were supported by appraisals.

"They should have asked if they wanted it," Giulietti testified, adding that Zurich's approach of relying on media reports about Trump's net worth was "inconsistent" with industry standards.

Giulietti acknowledged that he had an ongoing business relationship with Trump, including making $1.2 million in commissions from the company in 2022. A personal friend of Trump, Giulietti confidently defended his business record on the stand.

"You're sort of insulting me aren't you?" he said after state attorney Andrew Amer, on cross-examination, questioned his qualifications as an expert witness. "There's no one like me in the industry."

He later said he was sorry for his response.

"I would like to apologize to the counsel. Not my style," he told Amer.

The cross examination of the defense's real estate expert, which was expected to last at least two hours, ended abruptly after he appeared to contradict his own findings in the expert report he had compiled.

Steven Laposa testified yesterday that he believed the attorney general's report was "flawed" because it was based on the market value of Trump's assets, rather than their investment value, which could be much higher.

Minutes into his cross-examination, state attorney Louis Solomon requested that Laposa read the second sentence of the notes section of Donald Trump's statement of financial condition.

"Assets are stated at their estimated current values," the note said, referring to the properties' market value.

"First time I've seen this," Laposa responded after reading the note, which supported the attorney general's contention that the valuations were indeed based on market values.

"You wrote a report accusing the attorney general of bias" by using market values, Solomon lectured Laposa, prompting a sustained objection from the defense.

Solomon's cross-examination of Laposa concluded after the exchange.

The defense's real estate expert Steven Laposa resumed his testimony this morning by testifying about Donald Trump's "trophy properties."

Under questioning from the defense, Laposa explained that certain unique and iconic properties could be classified as trophy properties, which are generally purchased by a smaller pool of real estate investors. Trump's lawyers have claimed that the former president's assets include multiple trophy properties that were undervalued in his financial statements.

When Laposa attempted to describe how trophy properties are generally valued differently compared to normal buildings, state attorney Louis Solomon objected to the line of questioning, calling it a "waste of time."

Judge Arthur Engoron sustained the objection.

Following the fourth full day of testimony from witnesses for the defense Thursday, Donald Trump took to social media overnight to tout his case.

The former president posted that defense witnesses have "conclusively" proven that his financial statements were conservative and adequately disclosed, while claiming that New York Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron "knowingly, substantially, & outrageously" devalued his assets.

After criticizing Engoron's law clerk in a post last night, Trump's latest posts do not reference the clerk, who Trump was previously prohibited from mentioning under the limited gag order that was temporarily lifted yesterday.

Citing their ethical obligations, lawyers for the defendants in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial declined to provide details about "rumors of any kind" involving former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and urged Judge Arthur Engoron to make a decision solely based on the evidence presented at trial, after Engoron asked them to weigh in on public reports that Weisselberg was engaged in plea talks with the Manhattan DA's office to resolve a potential perjury charge.

In a letter submitted to Judge Engoron Wednesday, defense attorney Clifford Robert urged the judge to strictly consider the record from the trial in his final decision, describing his request to provide information about Weisselberg based on a New York Times article "unprecedented, inappropriate and troubling."

"The Article simply does not provide any principled basis for the Court to reopen the record or question the veracity of Mr. Weisselberg's testimony in this case. Indeed, we respectfully submit that the Court's request for comment on this speculative media account is unprecedented, inappropriate, and troubling," Robert wrote.

In a separate letter, Alina Habba -- who represents Weisselberg in the civil case but is not his criminal defense lawyer -- declined to provide any information about the potential perjury and argued that no further action was needed on the matter.

"The New York Times article is neither admissible nor reliable, and it should not be considered in Your Honor's determination as to the merits of this case," Habba wrote. "We urge you to render your decision based solely on the evidence now before you."

"Court decisions are supposed to be made based on the evidence at trial, not on media speculation," defense attorney Chris Kise said in a statement.