Trump attorney Todd Blanche sought to "test" jury candidates on their assurances that his client would "get a fair shake" as he began his questioning of the first group of prospective jurors.

"This isn't a baseball game," Blanche said, referring to a sports reference Assistant District Attorney Josh Steinglass had made during his questioning of jurors. "This is extraordinarily serious."

Blanche pressed jurors on their opinion of Trump, asking each of them whether they harbored any views about him in any capacity -- political or otherwise.

"If we were sitting in a bar, I'd be able to tell you," said the bookseller from the Upper West Side. But in the courtroom, he continued, that opinion has "absolutely no bearing on the case."

"I walk in here, and he's a defendant," he said. "That's all he is."

When another juror indicated that her awareness of Trump comes in part through the lens of her gender -- "I'm a female," she said -- Blanche asked her to elaborate.

"I know that there have been opinions on how he doesn't treat females correctly, stuff like that," she said. "I honestly don't know the story. So I don't have a view on it."

Another juror, an older male, drew laughter from courtroom when he said Trump "makes things interesting."

"I find him fascinating. He walks into a room, and he sets people off," the juror said. "I find that really interesting."

"Um, all right," Blanche said. "Thank you."

Assistant District Attorney Josh Steinglass has finished questioning the current group of prospective jurors, with defense attorney Todd Blanche now beginning his questions.

Steinglass wrapped up his questioning by asking the prospective jurors to "look inside yourselves" to make certain they could return a guilty verdict against the former president.

"Bottom line is, there are people who for a variety of reasons feel uncomfortable about returning a verdict of guilty in a criminal case," Steinglass said. He sought to make sure these prospective jurors could do it.

"If we do prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to be able to come back in here after deliberations, look the defendant in the eye," Steinglass said. "Look at the defendant and take a look inside yourselves. Will you be able to render a verdict of guilty?"

Trump appeared to be looking at the prospective jurors in the jury box as they each answered "Yes" to Steinglass's question. Trump tilted his head once or twice as they were answering.

Under questioning from Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass, prospective jurors agreed to weigh the evidence before them and nothing else -- vowing to set aside any personal feelings toward the former president or outside influences, in order to deliver a fair verdict.

"The particulars of this case -- it doesn't really have anything to do with my political inclinations," said the IT professional who earlier elicited a smile from Trump. "I can judge this case on the merits."

"I'm going to listen to all the facts," one woman said.

A retired MTA official who lives in the Lower East Side pledged to "give this man a fair shake." She described the judicial system as "great," but added that it could "use some tweaking in some places."

Trump, meanwhile, has been craning his neck, trying to look past his attorney Todd Blanche to get a view of the jurors as they field questions from Steinglass.

A woman who works for New York City told the court, "I'm a public servant and I've built my entire career trying to serve the city I live in and I see this as an extension of that," as individual questioning of prospective jurors continued.

She had signaled she had strong views about campaign finance, but said "I don't believe so" when Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass asked whether that would affect her ability to judge the case fairly.

Earlier, a self-employed woman who has lived on the Upper East Side for 25 years let out an audible sigh.

She had reached the part of the questionnaire that asked whether she can decide the case solely on the evidence and whether she had strong beliefs about Trump that would inhibit her from being fair.

"I'm not 100% sure I could be fair," the woman said, and was excused.

When a school teacher from Harlem who is in her late 20s answered the same question, she spoke about the 2020 election.

"There was a divide in the country and I can't ignore that," she said. "However, I never equated that to one individual." She remained in the jury pool.

After the Wall Street Journal ran a story that began to uncover the catch-and-kill arrangement between National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, Donald Trump and Trump's then-attorney Michael Cohen, Pecker testified that he ordered National Enquirer's Chief Content Officer Dylan Howard to contact McDougal's lawyer to ensure that she maintained her silence.

"I didn't know if she went off the reservation, so I asked Dylan to call Keith Davidson," Pecker testified before he began reading through a series of text messages from the 2016.

"She's cool. Moving forward with the [confidentiality agreement]," Howard texted Pecker.

"Excellent news," Pecker texted back.

"One day of discomfort and back [to] the campaign issues," Howard texted.

Days later, Trump was elected president of the United States.

"Is it fair to say that by the time of this [release from the agreement] … Mr. Trump has already been elected president?" Steinglass asked.