Nine additional prospective jurors from the second group of 96 were excused after they signaled they could not serve for other, unexplained, reasons.

Fifty-seven of the 96 in the second pool of prospective jurors have now been excused.

The remaining 39 are now giving their responses to the seven-page questionnaire.

Following the departure of Juror No. 2 this morning after she expressed concerns about her ability to serve, the court must now seat six jurors and six alternates. The court deferred dealing with the potential issue over Juror No. 4.

Addressing the new group of 96 prospective jurors, Judge Merchan asked for a show of hands "if you believe you cannot be fair and impartial."

Forty-eight people -- half the pool -- raised their hands.

Those potential jurors were then excused from the courtroom as Trump turned around to stare at those behind him.

A new group of 96 prospective jurors has entered the courtroom for the next round of jury selection.

Several in the group registering surprise upon seeing Trump at the defense table.

As Judge Merchan delivered his opening remarks, Trump’s eyes often remained closed. He appeared more attentive when Merchan ticked through the names of potential witnesses, which read like a Who’s Who of the Trump family, campaign and administration.

Following the loss of Juror. No. 2, attorneys are now discussing an issue with yet another juror -- Juror No. 4 -- after Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass said the the DA's team did research that "possibly called into question the veracity" of the answers he gave on the jury questionnaire.

Steinglass said a person with the same name as Juror No. 4 -- the Puerto Rican man who said he found Trump "fascinating and mysterious" -- had been arrested in the 1990s in Westchester for "tearing down political advertisements."

“I actually believe the propaganda that was being ripped down was political posters that were on the right -- the political right," Steinglass said.

He suggested that Juror No. 4's answer to question 19 on the questionnaire -- if you have ever been accused or convicted of committing a crime -- then "was not accurate."

Steinglass added they discovered the juror's wife had been embroiled in a "corruption inquiry" that resulted in her "entering in a differed prosecution agreement ... with the Manhattan DA's office."

Steinglass said they felt they were "ethically and legally obligated to bring this information to the court."

Judge Merchan said he instructed Juror No. 4 to be in court at 9:15, but he still has not shown up.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche said he did not consent to dismissing the juror without first hearing from him. They will revisit the issue later.

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, during his redirect examination, reiterated the basic terms of his catch-and-kill arrangement with Donald Trump and Michael Cohen, though he acknowledged he did not use the words "catch-and-kill" during his August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower.

"Did you specifically use the word catch-and-kill during that meeting?" prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked.

"No, I did not," Pecker said.

"What was your understanding of the part of the agreement that involved money?" Steinglass asked.

"It was my understanding that I would use the company's sources to hear any information that was coming out on Mr. Trump or the campaign related specifically to women who would be selling their stories," Pecker said, referencing a similar arrangement with then-gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"My understanding is [for] those stories that come up, I would speak to Michael Cohen and tell him that these are the stories that are going to be for sale. If we don't buy them someone else will, and that Michael Cohen would buy them or make sure they don't ever get published. That was my understanding from that meeting," Pecker said.

Pecker reiterated that he did not plan to publish the Karen McDougal story -- despite its value to the National Enquirer if it were true -- in order to help the Trump campaign.

"That would kind of be like National Enquirer gold?" Steinglass asked.

"Yes," Pecker responded.

"Zero intention of publishing that story?" Steinglass asked.

"That is correct," Pecker said.

"You killed the story because it helped the candidate Donald Trump?" Steinglass asked.

"Yes," Pecker said.

The proceedings subsequently broke for lunch, with redirect to resume afterward.