Court recessed for lunch, with the jury continuing their deliberations.

Under the rules of the court, no notes were to come from the jury during the hour-long lunch break.

While the jury deliberates, Trump -- from the courthouse -- posted to social media about the readback that the jury just heard.

During the readback, the jury heard former National Enquirer publisher testify about a June 2016 phone call he had with Trump after Playboy model Karen McDougal came forward with a story of a year-long affair with Trump, which Trump has steadfastly denied.

"This story about Karen, since she's claiming that she has a relationship with you, should be taken off the market," Pecker recounted telling Trump -- to which Trump replied, "I don't normally -- I don't buy stories because it always gets out."

"I still think you should buy the story," Pecker testified that he told Trump, to which Trump replied, "I'll speak to Michael, and he'll get back to you."

In his social media post, Trump said, "Testimony conclusively showed that I clearly stated, "I DON'T BUY STORIES!" -- Not that there would be anything wrong with doing that -- NDA's [nondisclosure agreements] are PERFECTLY LEGAL AND COMMON!"

Pecker testified that the National Enquirer eventually paid McDougal $150,000 to catch and kill her story so it would not become public, under the expectation that the money would be reimbursed by Trump -- although the reimbursement never materialized.

-Kelsey Walsh

At the conclusion of the readback, Judge Merchan asked the jury if he had satisfied both their requests.

"Yes sir," the jury foreman said.

The jury then left the courtroom to return to their deliberations.

"You are excused," Merchan said to the parties before leaving the bench and heading to his robing room.

Trump and his entourage departed the courtroom to head to the waiting area.

Turning to Michael Cohen's testimony, the jury reheard his testimony, under questioning from prosecutors, that Pecker -- during the 2015 Trump Tower meeting -- vowed to keep an eye out for "anything negative about Mr. Trump" and flag them to Cohen.

Q: Could you tell the jury, please, what was discussed and what was agreed to at that meeting?

A: What was discussed was the power of the National Enquirer in terms of being located at the cash register of so many supermarkets and bodegas; that if we can place positive stories about Mr. Trump, that would be beneficial; that if we could place negative stories about some of the other candidates, that would also be beneficial.

Q: Was there anything else that Mr. Pecker said he could also do for Mr. Trump's candidacy?

A: Yeah.

Q: What, in substance, did he say?

A: What he said was that he could keep an eye out for anything negative about Mr. Trump, and that he would be able to help us to know in advance what was coming out and try to stop it from coming out.

Q: And who did he say he would get in touch with if his -- he was able to identify those types of stories?

A: The answer was: Me. Mr. Trump also. Knowing my relationship with David, "The two of you should work together. And anything negative that comes , you let Michael know, and we'll handle it."

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.