Prosecutor Josh Steinglass laid out the DA's case for why Trump should be found guilty of falsifying records, even if he didn't pen them himself and just directed it to be done.

"Tarasoff may be doing the typing, but the defendant is causing the false business records," Steinglass said, referring to Trump Organization accountant Deborah Tarasoff.

Steinglass said Trump "doesn't want to leave a paper trail" and instead would "have his lackeys do it."

"If Trump didn't know about the scheme, why was he just signing the checks 'for services rendered' for $35,000 each month?" Steinglass asked.

"Does he call Cohen and say, 'Why'd I pay you $35000 for nothing?' No. He just signs it. Every month. He never once picks up the phone, he never once makes further inquiry," said Steinglass.

"Despite his frugality and attention to detail, the defendant didn't ask any questions. Because he already knew the answers."

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass' tone reached a crescendo as he ticked through a "mountain of evidence" he said that jurors would have to ignore to acquit Donald Trump.

"You'd have to disregard the fact" that Cohen wasn't paid in 2018, Steinglass said, and that Donald Trump repeatedly acknowledges in court papers, political filings and his own Twitter account that he knew the payments to Cohen were reimbursements.

"That means by definition he knew that the payment records ... were false," Steinglass said.

Jurors would also have to accept that "the amount he was paid just happens to magically" match what he paid for Stormy Daniels' story.

"Does anyone believe that?" Steinglass asked.

Trump, at the defense table, glanced at the monitor displaying the invoices that Steinglass was referencing. He shrugged his shoulders and shook his head before returning to a slouched position.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass emphasizing why the jury should not believe the 2017 payments to Michael Cohen were legal fees.

"The testimony was that he did less than 10 hours of legal work [in 2017] ... Cohen spent more time being cross-examined for this trial than he did doing legal work for Trump in 2017," Steinglass said.

"The fact is, Cohen did pretty well here. He got a cool title -- Personal Attorney to the President -- that he used to his advantage to get consulting gigs.

"He was making more money than any government job would ever pay -- and boy, do I know that," Steinglass joked, receiving a few chuckles from the jury.

"The defense must maintain that these were legal fees, because to say anything else is to admit that the business records are false -- and they can't do that," Steinglass said.

As ABC News reported previously, the U.S. Secret Service spent considerable time working with New York City court and jail officials to determine what would happen if the judge, as threatened during trial, ordered former President Trump to be incarcerated for contempt -- a situation that did not come to pass.

According to an official briefed on the matter, U.S. Secret Service planners have not started the process of determining arrangements for Trump to be imprisoned at a New York state penitentiary in the event he is convicted. Because Trump is charged with nonviolent crimes, has no criminal record, and was allowed to remain free before trial, it is believed that there is no way that a conviction would lead to immediate incarceration.

If Trump is convicted, the Secret Service will spend the time prior to sentencing -- which could be months -- working with New York state prison officials to determine how imprisonment would work. An official told ABC News that potential questions could include, would USSS agents be armed inside prisons where firearms are prohibited? What prison would Trump be assigned to? Where would protection agents be stationed in relation to Trump? Those details, among many others, would have to be hammered out, the official said.

The Secret Service specifically avoided planning on a possible prison sentence during the trial so Trump and his loyalists could not accuse them of taking sides against the former president, the official said.

-Josh Margolin

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.