Judge Juan Merchan plans to issue a ruling tomorrow about the bounds of Donald Trump's cross-examination if the former president decides to testify during the trial.

After hearing a brief oral argument this afternoon, Merchan told the parties he is reserving his decision, which he plans to issue sometime tomorrow.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued that Trump's alleged prior bad acts as demonstrated by a variety of civil and criminal determinations should be fair game during cross-examination.

The Sandoval hearing on Trump's potential testimony got underway with prosecutors pushing to cross-examine former president Donald Trump about his alleged violation of the limited gag order in his civil fraud trial.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo asked Judge Merchan to permit them to ask the former president about his testimony during his civil fraud trial when the former president claimed he was not referring to Judge Arthur Engoron's law clerk during remarks in the hallway of the courthouse last year.

Engoron determined that Trump's brief testimony rang "hollow and untrue."

Colangelo asked Merchan to allow cross-examination about Trump's testimony and the gag order violation last year in order to probe his credibility.

"He lied," Colangelo said of Trump. "It is very hard to think of something more probative of a testifying defendant's credibility."

Judge Juan Merchan began the court's afternoon session but did not mention the self-immolation incident this afternoon in the park across from the courthouse, and Trump did not respond to questions about the incident when asked by a reporter in the hallway outside the courtroom.

The judge plans to hold a Sandoval hearing this afternoon to determine the bounds of Trump's cross-examination if he decides to testify.

In a filing earlier this week, prosecutors said they planned to question the former president about his past civil cases, including $464 million business fraud judgment, the defamation and battery cases brought by E. Jean Carroll and a lawsuit Trump filed against Hillary Clinton claiming she conspired to rig the 2016 election.

Prosecutors also want to question Trump about the Trump Organization's 2022 criminal trial for tax evasion and the civil case against the Trump Foundation for misusing charitable donations to further Trump's political interests.

Trump is seated at counsel table between his lawyers Emil Bove and Todd Blanche. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is not present in the courtroom.

Former President Trump has filed a new emergency appeal to change the venue of his criminal trial.

Oral arguments are scheduled for this afternoon to determine whether the trial should be temporarily paused.

The motion is expected to cite some of the responses prospective jurors gave during the jury selection process.

Trump's prior attempts to move the trial out of Manhattan have failed.

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.