The debate over jury instructions turned to the definition of "accomplice liability."

Prosecutors argued that jury should be told that Trump can be convicted because he caused false leger entries to be created by Trump Organization employees Jeff McConney and Deb Tarasoff.

Prosecutors said it's a necessary instruction because the defense argued in opening statements that Trump himself did not enter accounting records.

Merchan reserved his decision about "accessorial liability" but said he was inclined to strike the proposed language related to the issue from the final charge.

As the lawyers continue their debate, Trump is flipping through a three-inch stack of papers, some of which appear to be press clippings.

Judge Merchan turned to what he called "the most challenging issue facing us all": how to pronounce "eleemosynary," which he said means "relating to charity." The quip got a laugh from both sides.

Merchan moved to delete the word from the jury instructions, and neither side objected.

The judge moved on to discussing the definition of "intent" as it relates to Trump's conduct.

Defense attorney Emil Bove requested that the jury instruction place "more emphasis" on the elements needed to prove Trump had an intent to defraud when he allegedly falsified documents.

"I am going to stick with the standard language," Merchan replied, shooting down the request.

Judge Merchan heard arguments over how former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's 2018 guilty plea on charges related to the Stormy Daniels payment should be described to the jury -- whether Cohen "participated" in crimes or was "convicted" of crimes.

The judge said echoed a defense concern that Cohen's convictions could be used to infer that Trump, by proxy, should also be found guilty.

"It seems like to me right now we are really playing with fire and getting close to that," Merchan said.

In general, Merchan reminded the parties, "Where there are standard pattern jury instructions, I don't deviate"

The defense is arguing a candidate's expenses arising from controversies are not necessarily campaign expenses.

Merchan suggests the language should be as follows: "If the payment would have been made, even in the absence of the candidacy, the payment should not be treated as a contribution."

Prosecutors have argued the payment to Stormy Daniels should have been labeled a campaign expenditure because it was meant to protect Trump's electoral prospects in 2016

Merchan reserves his decision on the issue but suggests he would include both proposed sentences from the parties.

The defense made a motion for the dismissal of the case, with defense attorney Todd Blanche telling Judge Merchan, "There's absolutely no evidence the filings were false, the business records were false."

When the invoices for Cohen's payment were sent to the Trump Organization there's no evidence they were entered improperly, Blanche said. "At the start, there is absolutely no false business filings. They're accurate business filings," he said.

Trump looked directly at Blanche as the attorney addressed Merchan.

"There's no evidence that there's any intent to defraud by Mr. Trump in connection to these filings," Blanche argued.

"There are no other crimes," defense attorney Todd Blanche argued about the legal standard in the case -- that Trump falsified business records in furtherance of another crime. "There is no evidence that any one was thinking about a campaign finance charge in 2016 when this payment was made to Ms. Daniels."

"The prosecutors have talked in their opening statement and in papers about some sort of conspiracy to influence the election but as the court knows there has to be something illegal about this effort," Blanche said. "There's no evidence from any of the witnesses who testified of any criminal intent."

"There is no way that the court should let this case go to jury relying on Mr. Cohen's testimony," Blanche said "Without Mr. Cohen, there is no case."

Judge Merchan asked if Blanche was calling for him to rule that Cohen's testimony is "not credible as a matter of law."

"Absolutely, that's exactly what we're calling on the court to do," Blanche replied. "He testified, and he lied under oath -- in this courtroom."