Prosecutors Josh Steinglass and Susan Hoffinger, and defense attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove continued to hash out the relevant portion of the transcript for tomorrow's readback as requested by the jury.

After spending about half an hour in his waiting area, Donald Trump returned to the courtroom.

He entered alongside his son Don Jr. and took a seat at the defense table as the attorneys continued to pore over the material.

After dismissing the jury for the day, Judge Merchan asked the lawyers not to leave the courtroom until they decide the portion for the jury's requested readback.

"Yes, your honor," defense attorney Todd Blanche responded.

As the lawyers met with Merchan at the bench, Trump leaned back in his seat at the defense table, with his arm resting on the top of his chair.

Blanche asked if Trump could return the his waiting area while the attorneys searched for the readback material.

Merchan said he would allow it as long as Trump remained nearby in case he is needed.

Trump slowly walked out of the courtroom, scowling as he left.

With the jury back in the courtroom, Judge Merchan told them the requested readback of testimony would will take at least half an hour, so announced he would dismiss the jury for the day and address both their notes when they return tomorrow.

Before dismissing the jury for the day, the judge emphasized his standard instruction about the jury not looking up information related to the trial.

"You are at a critical point in the proceedings," Merchan said.

"See you tomorrow morning at 9:30," the judge said before the jury exited the courtroom.

Judge Merchan, returning to the bench, announced, "We did just receive another note."

The judge said the jury wants to rehear the judge's instructions.

Merchan suggested bringing them back to clarify if they want the entire instructions or just a portion.

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.