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."

Jurors are paying close attention as Judge Merchan rereads his instructions. Some are taking notes with a few nodding along with him as he reads.

The jury again hears from Merchan that they should not draw negative inferences from Trump's decision not to testify.

"The fact that the defendant did not testify is not a factor from which any inference unfavorable to the defendant may be drawn," Merchan said. "The defendant is not required to prove that he is not guilty. In fact, the defendant is not required to prove or disprove anything. To the contrary, the People have the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Trump, at the defense table, is reclined in his chair but angled to face Merchan.

The jury specifically requested to hear the portion of the jury instruction that compared the drawing of inferences to concluding that a rain storm had passed outside.

They read as follows:

In evaluating the evidence, you may consider any fact that is proven and any inference which may be drawn from such fact. To draw an inference means to infer, find, conclude that a fact exists or does not exist based upon proof of some other fact or facts.

For example, suppose you go to bed one night when it is not raining and when you wake up in the morning, you look out your window; you do not see rain, but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet, and that people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas.

Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer, that is conclude, that it rained during the night. In other words, the fact of it having rained while you were asleep is an inference that might be drawn from the proven facts of the presence of the water on the street and sidewalk, and people in raincoats and carrying umbrellas.

An inference must only be drawn from a proven fact or facts and then only if the inference flows naturally, reasonably, and logically from the proven fact or facts, not if it is speculative. Therefore, in deciding whether to draw an inference, you must look at and consider all the facts in the light of reason, common sense, and experience.

The jury entered the courtroom, and Judge Merchan began by reading back their two notes from yesterday.

In preparation for the reading of the transcript, the judge said, "We are ready to read it back to you in one minute."

Trump, at the defense table, briefly looked over at the jury.

Asked by Merchan whether they wanted the transcript or instructions first, the jury foreman responded to Merchan in open court that the jury would like the "Instructions first."

Merchan then began rereading the instructions, beginning on page 6.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche says turned his attention to the three alleged catch-and-kill schemes cited by prosecutors, telling the jury that such arrangements were a normal industry practice and not illegal.

"There is nothing unusual ... about catching and killing," Blanche said.

He started with Dino Sajudin, the Trump Organization doorman who made unfounded claims about a love-child Trump supposedly fathered. Blanche called it "literally a made-up story."

Blanche used National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's initial desire to publish the story to undercut the idea of a conspiracy.

"The government wants you to believe that in Aaugust 2015 there was a super conspiratorial criminal meeting, where Mr. Pecker is going to criminally help Trump, and the first opportunity, he says, Oh no, I'm publishing this," Blanche said.

"What kind of a conspiracy is that?!" Blanche asked.