Three jurors from the first batch of 96 prospects have been selected for the jury.

After the defense raised a series of motions to remove jurors for cause, citing their social media posts, Judge Juan Merchan formally approved three jurors:

- an Irish-born salesman;

- an oncology nurse; and

- an attorney who lives in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood.

The selections came after Judge Merchan blocked one other motion from the defense to strike a juror for cause and granted another.

The juror Merchan agreed to remove was an Upper West Side bookseller who recently re-posted an AI video to social media mocking Trump, which included a fake Trump saying, "I'm dumb as f---."

"I thought it would be funny," the juror said.

The government then used three of its ten peremptory strikes and the defense used four.

After declining to strike a potential juror for her Facebook content, Judge Merchan granted a defense motion to strike another juror for a social media post.

"Good news!!" the post read. "Trump lost his court battle on his unlawful travel ban!!!"

If the post ended there, Judge Merchan said, he would allow him to remain in contention. But the post didn't stop there.

"Get him out and lock him up," the post continued.

Those post shows the prospective juror expressing "the desire that Trump be locked up," Merchan said. "Everyone knows that if Mr. Trump" is found guilty, he could face prison time.

"I don't think I can allow this juror to remain," the judge said, before agreeing to strike the juror.

Judge Merchan declined to strike for cause the prospective juror who posted what the defense called "hostile" Facebook videos, explaining that he believed the juror when she told the court that she would follow the facts of the case.

"I don't want a juror on this panel who lies to us. I don't want a juror on this panel who misleads us," he said. "And for this reason, I did want to hear from the juror."

Ultimately, Merchan found her assurances to be honest.

"I was able to see her demeanor, I was able to hear her voice," he said. "That juror looked me right in the eye, and when she said she could be fair and impartial, she meant it."

"I find her to be credible," Merchan concluded, before denying the defense motion to remove her from the jury.

As jury selection resumed for the afternoon session, Judge Juan Merchan scolded former President Trump over his audible "muttering" while a prospective juror was speaking.

"Your client was audibly muttering something," the judge told Trump's attorneys. "He was speaking in the direction of the juror. I will not tolerate that. I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom. I want to make that crystal clear. Take a minute and speak to your client."

The interaction occurred after Trump's defense attorney sought to immediately strike potential jurors for cause based on social media posts that he said contradicted their assertions of fairness.

"There's a number of the jurors that we have social media posts for very much contrary to the answers that they gave," defense attorney Todd Blanche said.

Blanche pointed to a woman who he said has a "series of extraordinarily hostile Facebook posts."

One of the posts read, "So I've been in the middle of the ocean for the last few weeks. What's going on?"

Another post included a video of people celebrating near Manhattan's 96th Street and the words, "Full-on dance party at 96 Street."

Judge Merchan seemed baffled. "Show me the bias," the judge said. "I'm trying to understand. How does this call into question what the juror said when that juror was answering questions?"

Blanche insisted the post, a day after the 2020 election, was a celebration of Trump's loss.

"This is ridiculous," prosecutor Josh Steinglass said.

The judge determined "there are enough questions here" to allow the defense to question the woman about her posts.

"I think I went to the car to alternate-side parking or something like that and there were people dancing in the street," the woman said, adding that it reminded her of the pandemic-era cheer for health workers.

"I understand that bias exists," the woman said. "The job of the juror is to understand the facts of the trial."

When the woman left the room, that's when the judge scolded Trump.

Former President Trump's attorney Emil Bove began his cross-examination of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker by seeking to painting Pecker and Trump's "mutually beneficially" relationship as one that had nothing to do with the election but rather had been underway for years under a "standard operating procedure."

"Seventeen years of providing President Trump with a heads-up about potentially negative publicity?" Bove asked Pecker.

"That's correct," Pecker said.

Bove asked Pecker about the first time he ever provided Trump with information -- which Pecker testified was in the 1990s and related to a negative story about Marla Maples, Trump's ex-wife.

"Fair to say that predated the Trump Tower meeting by a long time?" Bove asked of Pecker and Trump's relationship.

"Yes," Pecker said.

"A lot of interactions?" Bove asked.

"Yes," Pecker responded.

Pecker also testified about buying and suppressing stories for other individuals, such as one for former Rep. Rahm Emanuel for $20,000.

Bove also sought to show that kind of relationship between publishers and politicians was normal, saying there was "nothing wrong about" it.

"You are aware many politicians work with the media to try to promote their image?" Bove asked.

"Yes," Pecker responded.

"That's standard operating procedure?" Bove again asked.

"Yes," Pecker said.

"And sometimes when politicians are doing that, that is to try to win elections?" Bove continued.

"Right," Pecker responded.

"Nothing wrong about that?" Bove asked.

"No," Pecker responded.