The debate over jury instructions turned to the definition of "accomplice liability."

Prosecutors argued that jury should be told that Trump can be convicted because he caused false leger entries to be created by Trump Organization employees Jeff McConney and Deb Tarasoff.

Prosecutors said it's a necessary instruction because the defense argued in opening statements that Trump himself did not enter accounting records.

Merchan reserved his decision about "accessorial liability" but said he was inclined to strike the proposed language related to the issue from the final charge.

As the lawyers continue their debate, Trump is flipping through a three-inch stack of papers, some of which appear to be press clippings.

Judge Merchan turned to what he called "the most challenging issue facing us all": how to pronounce "eleemosynary," which he said means "relating to charity." The quip got a laugh from both sides.

Merchan moved to delete the word from the jury instructions, and neither side objected.

The judge moved on to discussing the definition of "intent" as it relates to Trump's conduct.

Defense attorney Emil Bove requested that the jury instruction place "more emphasis" on the elements needed to prove Trump had an intent to defraud when he allegedly falsified documents.

"I am going to stick with the standard language," Merchan replied, shooting down the request.

Judge Merchan heard arguments over how former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's 2018 guilty plea on charges related to the Stormy Daniels payment should be described to the jury -- whether Cohen "participated" in crimes or was "convicted" of crimes.

The judge said echoed a defense concern that Cohen's convictions could be used to infer that Trump, by proxy, should also be found guilty.

"It seems like to me right now we are really playing with fire and getting close to that," Merchan said.

In general, Merchan reminded the parties, "Where there are standard pattern jury instructions, I don't deviate"

The defense is arguing a candidate's expenses arising from controversies are not necessarily campaign expenses.

Merchan suggests the language should be as follows: "If the payment would have been made, even in the absence of the candidacy, the payment should not be treated as a contribution."

Prosecutors have argued the payment to Stormy Daniels should have been labeled a campaign expenditure because it was meant to protect Trump's electoral prospects in 2016

Merchan reserves his decision on the issue but suggests he would include both proposed sentences from the parties.

On redirect examination, prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked Michael Cohen about his testimony on cross-examination that nondisclosure agreements are perfectly legal and that the contract with Stormy Daniels was also legal.

Hoffinger sought to emphasize how out of the ordinary this particular NDA was.

"Under the circumstances of this NDA with Stormy Daniels -- was that perfectly legal under those circumstances?" Hoffinger asked, referring to efforts to affect the 2016 election.

"No ma'am," Cohen said.