Jurors are paying close attention as Judge Merchan rereads his instructions. Some are taking notes with a few nodding along with him as he reads.

The jury again hears from Merchan that they should not draw negative inferences from Trump's decision not to testify.

"The fact that the defendant did not testify is not a factor from which any inference unfavorable to the defendant may be drawn," Merchan said. "The defendant is not required to prove that he is not guilty. In fact, the defendant is not required to prove or disprove anything. To the contrary, the People have the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Trump, at the defense table, is reclined in his chair but angled to face Merchan.

The jury specifically requested to hear the portion of the jury instruction that compared the drawing of inferences to concluding that a rain storm had passed outside.

They read as follows:

In evaluating the evidence, you may consider any fact that is proven and any inference which may be drawn from such fact. To draw an inference means to infer, find, conclude that a fact exists or does not exist based upon proof of some other fact or facts.

For example, suppose you go to bed one night when it is not raining and when you wake up in the morning, you look out your window; you do not see rain, but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet, and that people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas.

Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer, that is conclude, that it rained during the night. In other words, the fact of it having rained while you were asleep is an inference that might be drawn from the proven facts of the presence of the water on the street and sidewalk, and people in raincoats and carrying umbrellas.

An inference must only be drawn from a proven fact or facts and then only if the inference flows naturally, reasonably, and logically from the proven fact or facts, not if it is speculative. Therefore, in deciding whether to draw an inference, you must look at and consider all the facts in the light of reason, common sense, and experience.

The jury entered the courtroom, and Judge Merchan began by reading back their two notes from yesterday.

In preparation for the reading of the transcript, the judge said, "We are ready to read it back to you in one minute."

Trump, at the defense table, briefly looked over at the jury.

Asked by Merchan whether they wanted the transcript or instructions first, the jury foreman responded to Merchan in open court that the jury would like the "Instructions first."

Merchan then began rereading the instructions, beginning on page 6.

"We did receive another note" from the jury this morning, Judge Merchan said.

According to Merchan, the jury wants the readback to begin with a description of how the jury should consider that evidence, and what should be drawn from the testimony.

Second, the jury said they want headphones "for use with the evidence laptop."

Merchan says the jury will get both headphones and a speaker so they can listen to the evidence.

Returning to the testimony of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, defense attorney Todd Blanche asked jurors, "How is the government going to ask you to convict President Trump based on the words of Michael Cohen?"

Blanche insisted to jurors that if the payments were all for repaying Cohen, that would mean Michael Cohen was working for free in 2017 -- something he said he never would have done.

"You saw him on the stand for three days -- do you believe that for a second?," Blanche asked. "That after getting stiffed on his bonus in 2016 … do you think that Michael Cohen thought, 'I'mgoing to work for free?'"

"Is that the man that testified, or was that a lie?" Blanche asked. "That is absurd!" he nearly shouted.