Jury selection is moving into a new phase with lawyers beginning the individual questioning of prospective jurors who made it through Judge Merchan's initial cuts.

Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass, up first, reminded prospective jurors that the case is not a referendum on their politics.

"Really give us the most honest answers you can," Steinglass said. "No one is suggesting you can't be a fair juror because you've heard of Donald Trump." He added, "We don't expect you to have been living under a rock for the last eight years or the last 30 years."

Steinglass first asked whether anyone felt like the district attorney's office had to prove more than the law requires "because of who he is."

Not a single hand went up.

"I think the job of the jury is to understand what's facts," one woman said. "I don't think it matters what my political views are. We listen to the facts of the case."

Trump is engaged with some of the responses at times, and at other times he leans back in his chair with his eyelids heavy.

A prospective juror who went through questioning but was ultimately excused from the case told ABC News outside the courthouse that she didn't like the former president, but that it was important he get a fair trial.

"I don't like him, I don't approve of what he did as president," said Kara McGee, when asked by ABC News about her feelings on Trump. "But the right to a fair trial is extremely important. And if this would serve to uphold that, then that would be my priority."

McGee was excused from the case because of scheduling conflicts with her job.

"No matter what you think about someone as a person, or what other things they may have done, what he is on trial for is a very specific thing that even he deserves the right to a fair trial," she said.

Asked about the sentiment of the other prospective jurors on their opinions of Trump, McGee said it "seemed pretty even, surprisingly."

"I thought because this is Manhattan it might be a little bit more liberal, but there were a number of people who said 'Yes, I listen to Fox, I watch Fox, I have been on Trump mailing lists in the past,'" she said. "So not really leaning towards one side or the other, that I can tell."

"You got a sense that people were really trying to put anything that they had brought to this aside, and step in and do their civic duty," she said. "And that people really were being honest."

Several more prospective jurors have moved on to the next round of the screening process after some were excused after saying they could not serve impartially.

Among those who remain following the initial questionnaire are a senior living professional from the Upper West Side, a native Mexican who became a U.S. citizen in 2017, a corporate lawyer who lives in Chelsea, and a Disney employee.

A twice-married man who lives in Battery Park earned a tight smile from former President Trump when he said he had read some of his books, including "The Art of the Deal." He said he read that book, as well as "How to be Rich" and a third title that he couldn't quite remember, prompting a chuckle from Trump.

He said that relatives on his wife's side lobby and fundraise for the Republican Party, and that he followed Trump on Twitter during his presidency.

"I don't think there's anything that would prevent me from being a fair and impartial juror," the man said. "I feel that no one is above the law."

He said, however, that he "would be lying" if he said he would promise not to discuss the case "to some degree" with his wife. When the judge said he could say nothing of substance, the man replied, "That would be tough."

The man also said his daughter was the victim of a violent sexual assault that he described as "traumatic," but he said it left him with a "generally favorable view of the legal system."

Trump has largely remained engaged during the process, reviewing what appears to be a copy of the jury questionnaire and keeping watch over the prospective jurors as they tick through their answers.

But at times, like on Monday, he has been observed shutting his eyes, allowing his chin to slouch, then quickly jerking it back up.

A prospective juror who was feeling under the weather was excused before jury selection resumed this morning.

The proceedings resumed when Judge Merchan returned to the bench after a 15-minute absence, which he said was prompted by a few tardy prospective jurors.

The judge said that one prospective juror was experiencing flu-like symptoms and asked to be removed from consideration. The parties did not object.

As the prospective jurors filed in, Trump appeared to be motionless in his seat, staring straight ahead.

Questioning of the jurors has resumed, with one prospective juror -- a finance professional -- being excused after he said his "unconscious bias" might prevent him from being an impartial juror.

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker described one of the most heated moments so far during the catch-and-kill arrangement between him, Donald Trump and Trump's then-attorney Michael Cohen.

When Cohen approached Pecker with a plan to reimburse the National Enquirer for buying the exclusive rights to Karen McDougal's story, the two men drew up paperwork in which Cohen would repay the Enquirer's parent company, AMI, through a shell company he created, Pecker said.

But Pecker testified that he had a change of heart after consulting with his general counsel.

"I called Michael Cohen and I said to him that the agreement we signed -- the deal was off. I am not going forward, it is a bad idea," Pecker testified. "I want you to rip up the agreement."

"He was very, very, angry. Very upset, screaming basically at me. And I said, I'm not going forward with this agreement, rip it up," Pecker said.

Pecker said Michael Cohen then brought up "the boss."

"And Michael Cohen said, the boss is going to be very angry with you. And I said, I'm sorry, I am not going forward. The deal is off," Pecker recounted. "And he said, I can't believe it. I'm a lawyer, I'm your friend. I don't understand why you're not going forward. I said I am not going forward. Period."

Pecker previously described at length that he was aware that the National Enquirer's payment to Karen McDougal in order to catch and kill her story for the benefit of Trump's campaign would amount to an illegal campaign contribution -- softening his tone when he testified to this.