Prosecutor Josh Steinglass addressed the defense allegation that Michael Cohen lied on the witness stand about an Oct. 24, 2016, phone call with Trump bodyguard Keith Schiller while Schiller was with Trump.

“Of course the defense says, ‘Ah-ha! That’s per-jur-y,’” Steinglass said, exaggerating the syllables to mimick how defense attorney Todd Blanche had said it during his closing.

“To them, that’s the big lie. But that’s not the only interpretation,” said Steinglass.

Steinglass then role-played the alleged conversation between Schiller and Cohen to suggest that Cohen could have talked to both Schiller and Trump during the 90-second call, as Cohen had testified.

“Forty-nine seconds,” Steinglass said after completing the role-play.

"Michael Cohen is understandably angry that to date he's the only one who paid the price," prosecutor Josh Steinglass said about the state's star witness.

"Cohen did the defendant's bidding for years," Steinglass said. "Anyone in Cohen's shoes would want the defendant to be held accountable.

Regarding Cohen stealing $30,000 from the Trump Organization by submitting an inflated reimbursement request for IT expenses, Steinglass said Cohen "is the one who brought it to everyone's attention. He raised it. He volunteered it."

As to why he wasn't arrested, Steinglass said, "he paid his price."

"He's been convicted of multiple felonies, ... he can't get a mortgage ... not to mention the steady stream of online attacks," Steinglass said.

And, Steinglass added, Cohen's theft is not a defense to falsifying business records.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass conceded that Stormy Daniels gave, at times, "cringe-worthy" testimony -- but told they jury the details she provided bolster her credibility.

"To be sure, there were parts of her testimony that were cringe-worthy," Steinglass said. "Some of the details of what the suite looked like, the contents of his toiletry bag" he said "ring true."

He accused the defense of working hard to discredit Daniels because that's the story Trump didn't want the American public to see.

"Stormy Daniels is the motive," Steinglass said. "And you can bet the defendant would not pay $130,000 ... just because he took a photograph with someone on the golf course."

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass took aim at the defense assertion that Stormy Daniels was out to extort Donald Trump.

"Maybe you think it's a sordid practice," he said. "In the end it doesn't really matter because you don't get to commit election fraud or falsify business records because you believe you have been victimized."

Steinglass told the jurors that many of the witnesses they heard from are Trump friends or fans.

"Pecker has no reason to lie here," he said, speaking of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker. "He still considers Donald Trump a friend and mentor, and still his testimony is utterly devastating."

"These people like the defendant," Steinglass said. "If anything, they have incentive to skew the testimony" in a way that will help him.

Judge Merchan reread the portion of the instructions about Michael Cohen's testimony because he is an "accomplice" the in alleged crime.

This is a standard legal instruction about the testimony of an accomplice. Per the instructions, the jury cannot convict based solely on Cohen's testimony unless it is corroborated by evidence. If he testified about something to which there is no other evidence or testimony, the jury cannot convict on that testimony alone.

Those instructions read as follows:

Under our law, Michael Cohen is an accomplice because there is evidence that he participated in a crime based upon conduct involved in the allegations here against the defendant.

Our law is especially concerned about the testimony of an accomplice who implicates another in the commission of a crime, particularly when the accomplice has received, expects or hopes for a benefit in return for his testimony.

Therefore, our law provides that a defendant may not be convicted of any crime upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is supported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of that crime.

In other words, even if you find the testimony of Michael Cohen to be believable, you may not convict the defendant solely upon that testimony unless you also find that it was corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.

The corroborative evidence need not, by itself, prove that a crime was committed or that the defendant is guilty. What the law requires is that there be evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime charged in such a way as may reasonably satisfy you that the accomplice is telling the truth about the defendant's participation in that crime.

In determining whether there is the necessary corroboration, you may consider whether there is material, believable evidence, apart from the testimony of Michael Cohen, which itself tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.