As the 12 main jurors left the courtroom, most appeared to look away from Trump as they passed his counsel table.

The six alternate jurors remained in the courtroom after the 12 main jurors left to begin deliberations.

"We are not going to excuse you just yet," Judge Merchan told the alternates,

He asked them to stick around through the deliberations. though they won't participate in the deliberations themselves.

"That concludes my instructions on the law. Counsel please approach," Judge Merchan said when he was done instructing the jury.

He held a sidebar with the attorneys, after which the jurors filed out of the courtroom to begin deliberations.

Judge Merchan emphasized that jurors each need to come to an individual decision about the verdict after hearing and understanding the view of the other jurors.

"Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after a fair and impartial consideration of the evidence with the other jurors," Merchan said.

"You should discuss the evidence and consult with each other, listen to each other, give the others' views careful consideration," he said. "You should not surrender an honest view of the evidence simply because you want the trial to end, or because you're outvoted."

"Your verdict on each count you consider must ... be unanimous -- that is, each and every juror must agree to it," Merchan said.

Merchan said that the jury foreperson will read the verdict for each of the charged counts. Merchan will then poll the entire jury to confirm their verdict.

Judge Merchan read the jury the New York state law related to falsifying business records.

"Under our law, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof," Merchan read.

Few of the jurors appeared to be taking the notes at that point.

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.