Judge Merchan then reviewed each of the counts against Trump to explain the People's burden of proof.

He said that in the interest of brevity, he would instruct them on Falsification of Business Records for the first count -- but not the full instruction for all 34 counts, because they are identical.

Merchan methodically walked through each of the allegedly falsified documents, listing the dates, voucher numbers, and check numbers for each of the records.

The judge said he would be happy to repeat the instructions later if the jury so requests.

Judge Merchan explained to jurors the prosecution's three theories for the unlawful means used to influence the 2016 election.

First, Merchan said that the unlawful means could include a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which caps campaign contributions. Prosecutors allege that Michael Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels exceeded the legal cap.

Second, Merchan said prosecutors argue that Trump and others falsified business records, including the bank paperwork for Essential Consultants Inc., the money wire to Daniels, and the 1099 forms related to Cohen's repayment.

Third, Merchan said the crime could be violations of tax laws related to the "grossing up" of Cohen's reimbursement to cover the taxes he would owe on the payment.

Judge Merchan tells the jury that prosecutors allege that Trump attempted to conceal a violation of New York election law by falsifying business records.

"They need not prove that the other crime was committed, aided, or concealed," Merchan said.

Prosecutors are relying on New York Election Law 17-152, which prohibits "any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means." Prosecutors offered three theories of the "unlawful means" mentioned in that law.

Though jurors will need to agree Trump falsified records in furtherance of an additional crime in order to convict, "they need not be unanimous" on "what unlawful means" were used, Merchan said.

Judge Merchan instructed the jury about how to decipher intent, telling them it "does not require premeditation."

Intent can even be momentary, Merchan said, telling the jurors the question about how to judge intent "naturally arises."

"You must decide if the required intent can be inferred beyond a reasonable doubt," he told them.

Merchan also said earlier, "If it is proven the defendant is criminally liable for the conduct of another, the extent or degree of defendant's participation does not matter ... The defendant is as guilty of the crime as if he had personally omitted the crime."

The jury specifically requested to hear the portion of the jury instruction that compared the drawing of inferences to concluding that a rain storm had passed outside.

They read as follows:

In evaluating the evidence, you may consider any fact that is proven and any inference which may be drawn from such fact. To draw an inference means to infer, find, conclude that a fact exists or does not exist based upon proof of some other fact or facts.

For example, suppose you go to bed one night when it is not raining and when you wake up in the morning, you look out your window; you do not see rain, but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet, and that people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas.

Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer, that is conclude, that it rained during the night. In other words, the fact of it having rained while you were asleep is an inference that might be drawn from the proven facts of the presence of the water on the street and sidewalk, and people in raincoats and carrying umbrellas.

An inference must only be drawn from a proven fact or facts and then only if the inference flows naturally, reasonably, and logically from the proven fact or facts, not if it is speculative. Therefore, in deciding whether to draw an inference, you must look at and consider all the facts in the light of reason, common sense, and experience.