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."

Judge Merchan told jurors that Michael Cohen is an "accomplice" to the alleged crime, so the jury cannot convict Trump on Cohen's testimony alone.

Even if they believe Michael Cohen, they need to rely on evidence corroborating his testimony, Merchan said.

Trump, at the defense table, appeared to perk up just a bit at this, looking up at Merchan as he delivered this information to the jury.

Judge Merchan told the jury that they have the ultimate authority in determining the truthfulness of a witness' testimony -- an instruction that might come in handy given the emphasis that defense lawyers placed on Michael Cohen's testimony, which they say includes lies.

"You will alone determine the truthfully and the accuracy of the testimony of each witness," Merchan said.

He added that the jury could either disregard the testimony of an untruthful witness entirely, or disregard part of it.

"There is no particular formula" to determine credibility, Merchan said.

"You may consider whether the witness has any interest in the outcome of the case," he said -- another matter that might weigh on jurors' minds.

"You may consider whether a witness did have, or did not have, a motive to lie," the judge said.

Trump's attorney had told the jury Cohen had an "axe to grind" against his former boss. Prosecutors partially conceded that Cohen had a motive, acknowledging that, to date, he is the only one who suffered any consequences from the matter at hand.

Trump, at the defense table, appeared to look over to the jury and offer a bit of a closed-mouth grin.

Judge Merchan instructed the jury that they cannot hold Trump's not testifying against him.

"Defendant is not required to prove that he is not guilty," he said.

"The defendant is not required to prove or disprove anything," said the judge.

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.