The court reporters read out the first portion of the testimony about David Pecker's recollection of the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting.

His testimony is as follows:

At that meeting, Donald Trump and Michael, they asked me what can I do and what my magazines could do to help the campaign. So thinking about it, as I did previously, I said what I would do is I would run or publish positive stories about Mr. Trump and I would publish negative stories about his opponents. And I said that I would also be the eyes and ears of your – I said I would be your eyes and ears because I know that the Trump Organization had a very small staff. And then I said that anything that I hear in the marketplace, if I hear anything negative about yourself or if I hear anything about women selling stories, I would notify Michael Cohen, as I did over the last several years, I would notify Michael Cohen and then he would be able to have them kill in another magazine or have them not be published or somebody would have to purchase them.

The court reporters read out the first portion of the testimony about David Pecker's recollection of why the deal to transfer the life rights of Karen McDougal's story to Trump fell through.

His testimony is as follows:

I called Michael Cohen, and I said to him that the agreement, the assignment deal is off. I am not going forward. It is a bad idea, and I want you to rip up the agreement. He was very, very, angry. Very upset. Screaming, basically, at me. And I said, I am not going forward with this agreement. Rip it up. And he said, excuse me, Michael Cohen said, The Boss is going to be very angry at you. I said, I am sorry. I am not going forward. The deal is off. And he said, I can't believe it. I am a lawyer. I am your friend. I don't understand why you are so concerned. I said, I am very concerned, and I am not going forward, period. And I said, are you going to rip it up or not? And he said, I will take care of it.

The court reporters read out the portions of then-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's testimony about his June 2016 call with Trump, under questioning from prosecutors.

Q: And could you tell us about the conversation you had that day with Donald Trump?

A: Yes. When I got on the phone, Mr. Trump said to me: "I spoke to Michael. Karen is a nice girl." "Is it true that a Mexican group is looking to buy her story for 8 million dollars?" I said -- I said: "I absolutely don't believe that there is a Mexican group out there to buy a story for $8 million dollars." And then he said: "What do you think I should do?" I said: "I think you should buy the story and take it off the market."

Q: So when the subject of Karen McDougal came up, Donald Trump described her as a nice girl?

A: Yes.

Q: Based on your conversation with Mr. Trump, did you have an understanding as to whether he was aware of the specifics of Karen McDougal's description of the affair?

A Yes, I did.

Q: What made you come to such an understanding?

A: I think that Michael Cohen gave him the -- spoke to Donald Trump, which he said he was going to -- which -- excuse me -- which Donald Trump said on the phone that, "I spoke to Michael." And I believe that when Mr. Trump said that to me over the phone that she was a nice girl, I believe that he knew who she was --

Q: Why would you recommend to Donald Trump purchasing the story?

A: I believed the story was true. I think that it would have been very embarrassing to himself and also to his campaign.

Q: After your conversation with Donald Trump, did you have another conversation with Michael Cohen?

A: Yes. On the conversation with Donald Trump, he said to me, clearly, that he doesn't buy stories because it always gets out. And he said to me that Michael Cohen would be calling me. He was going to speak to Michael and he would be calling me back.

A: I said that -- that, "This story about Karen, since she's claiming that she has a relationship with you, should be taken off the market." And Mr. Trump said, "I don't normally -- I don't buy stories because it always gets out." And then I said, "I still think you should buy the story." And Mr. Trump said to me, "I'll speak to Michael, and he'll get back to you."

Q: And so, as you sit here today, you remember that during that conversation, you said to President Trump: It is my understanding that she doesn't want her story published?

A: (Pause). Yes. I did. I remember saying that.

Judge Merchan concluded the rereading of the jury instruction. The jury foreman confirmed in open court that the readback of the instructions were responsive to the jury's note.

The court reporters then began reading the transcript portions, with two court reporters role playing the transcript -- one playing the prosecutor and the other playing David Pecker.

Trump looked around, craning his neck, and then began listening to the testimony.

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.