Judge Juan Merchan has recessed court for the day.

Proceedings will resume tomorrow with plans to choose the remaining alternates for the jury.

Prosecutors are keeping their cards close to vest regarding who the first witnesses called at trial will be.

When defense attorney Todd Blanche requested the names of the first three state witnesses, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass declined to provide the name of the first planned witnesses following opening statements.

“Mr. Trump has been tweeting about the witnesses,” Steinglass said. “We are not telling you who the witnesses are.”

Blanche attempted to ease that concern by vowing that the former president would not post about the likely witness.

“I don’t think you can make that representation,” Judge Juan Merchan said.

On a separate matter, Merchand said that if time permits tomorrow, he plans to hold a planned hearing on the bounds of Trump’s cross-examination if he opts to testify.

Judge Merchan indicated that his goal is to have opening statements in the trial begin on Monday morning.

“We can't start until every single one of you is here,” Merchan said to the newly sworn-in jury members, urging them to inform him if they encounter any delay.

After the jury was sworn in, former President Trump sat stone-faced at the defense table with his hands locked, staring at the jury as they left the courtroom.

Following the seven jurors chosen earlier, here is basic biographical information on the remaining five jurors, whose identities are being kept private for security reasons.

Juror No. 8 is a former wealth manager who moved to New York in the 1980s. He is originally from Lebanon.

Juror No. 9 is a speech therapist who grew up in New Jersey.

Juror No. 10 has lived in Murray Hill for six years and worked in commerce for an eyewear company.

Juror No. 11 is originally from California and works as a production development manager for a multinational apparel company.

Juror No. 12 is a physical therapist whose husband works as a coach for a professional sports team.

A woman who works for New York City told the court, "I'm a public servant and I've built my entire career trying to serve the city I live in and I see this as an extension of that," as individual questioning of prospective jurors continued.

She had signaled she had strong views about campaign finance, but said "I don't believe so" when Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass asked whether that would affect her ability to judge the case fairly.

Earlier, a self-employed woman who has lived on the Upper East Side for 25 years let out an audible sigh.

She had reached the part of the questionnaire that asked whether she can decide the case solely on the evidence and whether she had strong beliefs about Trump that would inhibit her from being fair.

"I'm not 100% sure I could be fair," the woman said, and was excused.

When a school teacher from Harlem who is in her late 20s answered the same question, she spoke about the 2020 election.

"There was a divide in the country and I can't ignore that," she said. "However, I never equated that to one individual." She remained in the jury pool.