Judge Merchan told jurors that Michael Cohen is an "accomplice" to the alleged crime, so the jury cannot convict Trump on Cohen's testimony alone.

Even if they believe Michael Cohen, they need to rely on evidence corroborating his testimony, Merchan said.

Trump, at the defense table, appeared to perk up just a bit at this, looking up at Merchan as he delivered this information to the jury.

Judge Merchan told the jury that they have the ultimate authority in determining the truthfulness of a witness' testimony -- an instruction that might come in handy given the emphasis that defense lawyers placed on Michael Cohen's testimony, which they say includes lies.

"You will alone determine the truthfully and the accuracy of the testimony of each witness," Merchan said.

He added that the jury could either disregard the testimony of an untruthful witness entirely, or disregard part of it.

"There is no particular formula" to determine credibility, Merchan said.

"You may consider whether the witness has any interest in the outcome of the case," he said -- another matter that might weigh on jurors' minds.

"You may consider whether a witness did have, or did not have, a motive to lie," the judge said.

Trump's attorney had told the jury Cohen had an "axe to grind" against his former boss. Prosecutors partially conceded that Cohen had a motive, acknowledging that, to date, he is the only one who suffered any consequences from the matter at hand.

Trump, at the defense table, appeared to look over to the jury and offer a bit of a closed-mouth grin.

Judge Merchan instructed the jury that they cannot hold Trump's not testifying against him.

"Defendant is not required to prove that he is not guilty," he said.

"The defendant is not required to prove or disprove anything," said the judge.

Judge Merchan told the jury that they should not speculate about the sentence or punishment in the case.

"It will be my responsibility to impose an appropriate sentence," Merchan said.

The judge also had to advise the jury about this yesterday after defense lawyer Todd Blanche argued that the jury "cannot send somebody to prison" based on Michael Cohen's testimony.

The jury appears to be laser focused on Merchan during the charge. Half of the jurors appear to be taking notes.

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.