Judge Merchan then reviewed each of the counts against Trump to explain the People's burden of proof.

He said that in the interest of brevity, he would instruct them on Falsification of Business Records for the first count -- but not the full instruction for all 34 counts, because they are identical.

Merchan methodically walked through each of the allegedly falsified documents, listing the dates, voucher numbers, and check numbers for each of the records.

The judge said he would be happy to repeat the instructions later if the jury so requests.

Judge Merchan explained to jurors the prosecution's three theories for the unlawful means used to influence the 2016 election.

First, Merchan said that the unlawful means could include a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which caps campaign contributions. Prosecutors allege that Michael Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels exceeded the legal cap.

Second, Merchan said prosecutors argue that Trump and others falsified business records, including the bank paperwork for Essential Consultants Inc., the money wire to Daniels, and the 1099 forms related to Cohen's repayment.

Third, Merchan said the crime could be violations of tax laws related to the "grossing up" of Cohen's reimbursement to cover the taxes he would owe on the payment.

Judge Merchan tells the jury that prosecutors allege that Trump attempted to conceal a violation of New York election law by falsifying business records.

"They need not prove that the other crime was committed, aided, or concealed," Merchan said.

Prosecutors are relying on New York Election Law 17-152, which prohibits "any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means." Prosecutors offered three theories of the "unlawful means" mentioned in that law.

Though jurors will need to agree Trump falsified records in furtherance of an additional crime in order to convict, "they need not be unanimous" on "what unlawful means" were used, Merchan said.

Judge Merchan instructed the jury about how to decipher intent, telling them it "does not require premeditation."

Intent can even be momentary, Merchan said, telling the jurors the question about how to judge intent "naturally arises."

"You must decide if the required intent can be inferred beyond a reasonable doubt," he told them.

Merchan also said earlier, "If it is proven the defendant is criminally liable for the conduct of another, the extent or degree of defendant's participation does not matter ... The defendant is as guilty of the crime as if he had personally omitted the crime."

The jury heard a readback of David Pecker's testimony about Donald Trump dating the "most beautiful women," the National Enquirer's coverage of Bill Clinton's "womanizing," and the "mutually beneficial" relationship between the tabloid and the Trump campaign.

Q: Can you explain to the jury how the topic of women in particular came up?

A: Well, in a presidential campaign I was the person that thought that there would be a number -- a lot of women come out to try to sell their stories, because Mr. Trump was well-known as the most eligible bachelor and dated the most beautiful women. And it was clear that based on my past experience, that when someone is running for a public office like this, the -- it is very common for these women to call up a magazine like the National Enquirer to try to sell their stories. Or I would hear it in the marketplace through other sources that stories are being marketed.

Q: Did you have or express any ideas about how you may be able to help kind of deal with those stories by women?

A: All I said was I would notify Michael Cohen.

Q: What about Bill and Hillary Clinton, did their names up during this meeting?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you explain how?

A: As I mentioned earlier, my having the National Enquirer, which is a weekly magazine, and you focus on the cover of the magazine and who -- and who and what is the story that is the topic of the week, the Hillary running for president and Bill Clinton's womanizing was the biggest, one of the biggest sales I had for the National Enquirer and the other tabloids, that's the other things that the readers wanted to read about and that's what I would sell weekly. So I was running the Hillary Clinton stories. I was running Hillary as an enabler for Bill Clinton, with respect to all of the womanizing. And I was -- it was easy for me to say that I'm going to continue running those type of stories for the National Enquirer.

Q: And did you believe that that would help Mr. Trump's campaign?

A: I think it was a mutual benefit. It would help his campaign; it would also help me.

The jury also heard the testimony where Pecker testified that he never purchased stories to kill for Trump prior to the 2016 election.

Q: And what was the purpose of notifying Michael Cohen when you came upon stories like that?

A: Well, as I did in the past, that would be in the past eight years, when I notified Michael Cohen of a story that was a negative story, he would try to vet it himself to see if the story was true or not. He would go to the individual publication to get the story to make sure the story wasn't published and getting killed.

Q: Prior to that August 2015 meeting, had you ever purchased a story to not print it about Mr. Trump?

A: No.