About 60 members of the press have filled up the courtroom's wooden pews ahead of today's proceedings.

As reporters settled in, a court reporter used an office chair to wheel a three-foot stack of printed transcripts into the courtroom.

She left the precarious slack of binders at the front of the courtroom near the jury box, prompting light applause from the reporters in the gallery.

The jury in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial is scheduled to begin deliberating the outcome of the case this morning after lengthy closing arguments yesterday.

Judge Juan Merchan will begin the proceedings at 10 a.m. ET when he instructs the jury about the law in the case -- a vital process that Merchan estimates will take approximately an hour.

Once the jury is charged, they can begin deliberating whether prosecutors met their burden by proving that Trump falsified 34 business records to further a criminal conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.

The jury heard nearly eight hours of summations yesterday when defense lawyer Todd Blanche and prosecutor Joshua Steinglass delivered marathon closing arguments.

Blanche told jurors that prosecutors failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt due in part to their reliance on the testimony of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who he described as the "human embodiment of reasonable doubt."

Steinglass argued that Trump's alleged falsification of records ahead of the election amounted to a "subversion of democracy" by hiding critical information from voters.

With closing arguments concluded, Judge Merchan dismissed the jury and instructed them to return tomorrow for deliberations.

He said the jury will deliberate between 10 a.m. ET and 4:30 p.m. ET tomorrow.

The judge ended by advising the parties to instruct their guests that they will be locked in the courtroom once the jury charge starts.

"No one will be allowed in or out of the courtroom," Merchan said.

Trump had a stomp in his step as he exited the courtroom, fiercely gripping his blazer and yanking down loud enough that it made a snapping noise.

He did not address the media, but glared at a reporter and muttered something under his breath as he exited.

"There's no special standard for this defendant," prosecutor Josh Steinglass said as he finished his closing. "Donald Trump can't shoot someone during rush hour on Fifth Avenue and get away with it."

The judge sustained the defense's objection to that statement.

"In the interest of justice and in the name of the People of New York, I ask you to find the defendant guilty," Steinglass said, concluding his marathon closing.

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.