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

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass emphasized a Feb. 8, 2017, White House meeting between Michael Cohen and Trump, where Cohen said Trump confirmed the plan to repay him for the Daniels hush money payment.

While defense lawyers have tried to distance Trump from the first few checks to Cohen -- which were signed by representatives of Trump's trust rather than Trump himself -- Steinglass argued that Trump reassured Cohen about the first two payments during their meeting.

"There is evidence that Trump knew, and it's right here," Steinglass said.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass returned to the defense's argument that Trump "grossing up" the Cohen reimbursement -- effectively doubling the payment to account for the taxes Cohen would have to pay -- suggests the payment is suspicious for the famously frugal Trump.

"But it was worth it -- it was worth it to hide the truth about what this money was really for -- a reimbursement for the Daniels payoff," Steinglass said.

Steinglass was basically giggling to the jury as he tried to poke holes in the defense theory about the payments were legitimate expenses for legal work.

"These documents are so damning that you almost have to laugh at how Mr. Blanche explained it to you," Steinglass said.

Calling the documents "smoking guns," Steinglass said "they completely blow out of the water the defense claim."

"I'm almost speechless that they're still trying to make this argument that the it was for services rendered," Steinglass said of the payment.

The parties returned from break, during which Trump commented on the prosecutions' arguments on his social media platform, writing, "BORING!" and "FILIBUSTER!"

Back in court, prosecutor Josh Steinglass walked the jury through the evidence and testimony about the meeting when Trump approved Michael Cohen's repayment plan in 2017 -- the arrangement that prompted the falsification of business records.

Steinglass began with the the bank statement that had been entered into evidence.

"Right on the bank statement, Weisselberg and Cohen calculated all the money owed to Cohen," Steinglass said, referring to then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg.

Cohen testified about meeting with Trump and Weisselberg in the days ahead of Trump's inauguration when the payment plan was approved.

"Weisselberg discussed the reimbursement plan with Trump and Cohen," Steinglass said. "Mr. Trump approved the payment plan."

As Judge Merchan reread the jury instructions, the jury again hears what exactly is reasonable doubt in the eyes of the law.

"A reasonable doubt is an honest doubt of the defendant's guilt for which a reason exists based upon the nature and quality of the evidence. It is an actual doubt, not an imaginary doubt. It is a doubt that a reasonable person, acting in a matter of this importance, would be likely to entertain because of the evidence that was presented or because of the lack of convincing evidence," Merchan said.

The jury also heard again how to judge the credibility of a witness.

"You must decide whether a witness told the truth and was accurate, or instead, testified falsely or was mistaken," Merchan said.
Trump's team had hammered the credibility of Michael Cohen, saying he had an "ax to grind" -- and who they will rehear testimony from again later this morning.

"You may consider whether a witness had, or did not have, a motive to lie," Merchan instructed them. "If a witness had a motive to lie, you may consider whether and to what extent, if any, that motive affected the truthfulness of that witness's testimony."