Defense attorney Emil Bove argued that the jury should not consider Michael Cohen's tax crimes as one of the crimes Trump advanced by allegedly falsifying business records when he repaid Cohen for the Stormy Daniels hush payment.

Bove argued that Cohen was unaware of the alleged tax crimes when then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg "grossed up" his reimbursement to accommodate for taxes on the payment.

Cohen testified he did not think of the tax law at the time, telling jurors, "I just wanted to get my money back."

Defense attorney Emil Bove tried to make the argument that this particular case is unusual because Trump is not a typical defendant.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo responded that's precisely why the standard language should be used.

"No one is above the law," he said.

Judge Merchan settled the matter and ruled against the defense.

"I understand what you mean when you say it's an important case," he said. "But what you're asking me to do is to change the law, and I'm not going to do that."

Discussing the August 2015 meeting in Trump Tower where prosecutors say Trump, Michael Cohen and then-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker agreed to the criminal conspiracy, defense attorney Emil Bove argued Trump's "mere presence" at a 2015 meeting at Trump Tower with David Pecker and Michael Cohen where the alleged conspiracy was hatched "could very much be part of the defense here."

Bove said "there's nothing criminal about that at all," despite prosecutors arguing it's where the catch-and-kill scheme originated.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued there is no way the jury could interpret the meeting as a "high minded conversation about democracy."

The defense failed to convince Judge Merchan to add a layer of intent that prosecutors have to prove.

Merchan told the parties he was "concerned about" a proposed addition by defense attorneys related to Trump's intent to defraud.

The defense proposed including an instruction that the state "must establish beyond a reasonable doubt two separate intents" for Trump to commit crimes -- for both falsifying records and the other crime Trump furthered with the falsification.

"This proposed language is just inconsistent with the text of the statute," prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued.

Merchan said he was inclined to use the standard instruction, excluding the proposed defense addition.

"That second level of intent ... is incorporated by reference to the first," Merchan said.

New York's Appellate Division has upheld Judge Juan Merchan's decision not to recuse himself from former President Trump's hush money case.

Trump's defense team had sought Merchan's recusal based on his daughter's work for a consulting firm with Democratic clients.

A panel of appellate judges ruled that Trump failed to prove the judge overstepped his authority by denying a defense motion for recusal.

"Petitioner has failed to establish that the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by denying his motion," today's order said. "Petitioner also has not established that he has a clear right to recusal."

The judges also found that the defense appeal was procedurally improper since they waited too long to appeal Merchan's August 2023 recusal order, then rushed to the Appellate Division before Merchan ruled on their more recent recusal motion.

The appellate court also upheld Merchan's decision denying Trump's argument that some of his social media posts were covered by presidential immunity.

The appeals court said Trump could include both appeals in its general appeal of the verdict should he be found guilty.

The court also denied Trump's request for a change of venue for the trial, which Trump had sought before the trial began last month.

The former president has repeatedly criticized Judge Merchan as "conflicted" throughout the trial.