Judge Juan Merchan took his seat on the bench and began the day's proceedings.

After introductions from the lawyers, Merchan said his usual, "Good morning, Mr. Trump."

Before Merchan entered the courtroom, one of the court officers left a document on the bench and handed copies to both parties.

Former President Trump has entered the courthouse for the day's proceedings.

The prosecution team has arrived in the courtroom. Prosecutor Josh Steinglass was seen reviewing documents with a court reporter.

Ahead of the start of deliberations this morning, court stenographers are sorting through seven enormous transcript binders that are scattered around the jury box.

With the jury requesting readbacks of testimony, the transcripts are set to play a key role in this morning's proceedings.

About 60 members of the press are packed into the gallery ahead of the proceedings.

As jurors begin their second day of deliberations, Trump's legal team feels that the longer the jury deliberates, the more they're hoping for a hung jury, sources told ABC News.

Trump's lawyers see the requests the jury has made to rehear testimony from the case as a mixed bag, the sources said -- not positive news that jurors wanted to rehear former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's testimony, but at the same time feeling optimistic that jurors requested portions of Michael Cohen's transcript.

Trump's attorneys are looking for any indication that the jury will probe issues surrounding Cohen's credibility, which cuts to the core of their defense, according to the sources.

"We want chaos ... we want evidence of strong disagreements," one person close to Trump's legal team said regarding the jury, signaling their hope that at least one juror will raise doubts about the theories presented by the prosecution.

-Katherine Faulders and John Santucci

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.