In his closing argument yesterday, prosecutor Josh Steinglass framed the 2015 Trump Tower meeting, for which the jury requested the transcript, as central to the case.

"That was the whole purpose of the Trump Tower meeting, to get AMI to help [Trump] win the election," Steinglass told the jurors, claiming that "the Trump Tower conspiracy violated New York state election law."

Defense attorney Todd Blanche, in his closing, pushed back on the significance of the meeting, saying it was AMI merely agreeing to do what it had done for decades.

"They had been doing it for President Trump since the Nineties," Blanche said of the arrangement to catch and kill unflattering stories. "Mr. Pecker told you that AMI purchases stories all the time.

"They purchased stories about Tiger Woods, Mark Wahlberg and other people. No crime," Blanche said.

The phone call between Trump and then-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, which the jury requested be read back, involved an alleged discussion about Playboy model Karen McDougal, who alleged a year-long affair with Trump that Trump has denied.

"With all of the evidence and documents in this case, it's easy to lose sight of the significance of this phone call," prosecutor Josh Steinglass told jurors during his closing argument yesterday.

Steinglass argued that the call proved that Trump "was overtly discussing purchasing [McDougal's] story to keep it from being published" -- and that it also proved that Michael Cohen was telling the truth when he said he was acting at the direction of Trump.

"This call makes it impossible for the defense to claim that Cohen was acting on his own, that he was taking it upon himself to work with AMI to purchase the McDougal story," Steinglass told the jurors.

"I will be in the robing room -- let me know when you are ready for readback," Judge Merchan said after the jury requested a review of four pieces of testimony from Michael Cohen and David Pecker.

Merchan then left the courtroom.

A court reporter dropped a 12-inch stack of transcripts on the prosecution counsel table then handed an index to the prosecutors.

Trump attorneys Emil Bove and and Todd Blanche appeared to be searching through papers on their table, while Trump sat motionless. Prosecutors were doing the same thing.

"Good afternoon. We have received a note," Judge Merchan said after taking the bench.

The jury has made four requests for testimony:

- Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's testimony about the phone conversation with Donald Trump

- Pecker's testimony about the decision regarding the assignment of Playboy model Karen McDougal's life rights

- Pecker's testimony about the 2015 Trump Tower meeting

- Michael Cohen's testimony about the 2015 Trump Tower meeting

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.