Judge Merchan flatly told the defense that former President Trump could not make an advice-of-counsel argument.

The judge said the defense was being "disingenuous" by raising it now when Trump was given a deadline months ago to say whether he would invoke the defense that, in his conduct, he was relying on the advice of lawyers.

"It was concerning when notice was not given initially. It was concerning when the term was changed to 'presence of counsel.' I couldn't believe when I saw in your submission, 'involvement of counsel,'" Merchan told the defense regarding their efforts to advance that argument.

"My ruling is the jury will not hear that instruction from the bench, nor are you permitted to make that argument, period," Merchan said.

"I am not being disingenuous with Your Honor," defense attorney Emil Bove said before he attempted to argue in favor of the defense.

"You said that already, Mr. Bove," Merchan said. "This is an argument you have been advancing for many many months. ... It is denied. It is not going to happen."

Trump, at the defense table, scribbled a note and passed it to defense attorney Todd Blanche.

The defense returned to the question of Michael Cohen's 2018 guilty plea and AMI's non-prosecution agreement with the federal government.

Defense attorney Emil Bove called it a "critical issue" the jury could infer Trump's guilt based on his association with Cohen and AMI executive David Pecker.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass called the curative language the defense suggested "outrageous," and Judge Merchan said he would stick to what he told the jury during the evidentiary phase of the trial: That the guilty plea of Cohen and the non-prosecution agreement of AMI could be used to judge witness credibility -- but could not be used as an inference of the defendant's guilt.

Defense lawyers asked Judge Merchan to include an instruction for jurors that clarifies how prominent Republicans and members of the public reacted to the release of the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape.

Witnesses like Trump aides Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout testified about the effect of the video, which led prominent Republicans like John McCain withdrawing their endorsement of Trump and the Republican National Committee considering finding a new candidate.

Prosecutors pushed back on the defense request, describing it as "confusing" and "unnecessary."

"The nature of the reaction by the Republican Party by other prominent Republican senators by other members of the public -- the fact that was the reaction -- had an impact on the listener being the defendant," prosecutor Josh Steinglass argued.

Prosecutors have argued that the immense public backlash to the Access Hollywood motivated Trump to kill the Stormy Daniels story in the days before the election.

Judge Merchan said he would review the relevant portions of the transcript before making a decision, but said he was inclined to agree with the state, suggesting the proposed instruction would be denied.

Following a break, Judge Merchan told the parties that he had worked through his own notes and asked the lawyers for each side to weigh in on what he might have missed.

The defense sought an instruction about former President Trump regarding bias.

"We don't think that this is necessary, this charge," prosecutor Josh Steinglass said in response. "I don't think instructing the jury that they shouldn't hold bias against the defendant is necessary -- voir dire has satisfied this problem, I think."

The defense also sought an instruction that hush money payments are not inherently illegal. Prosecutors opposed it, arguing the request amounts to the judge making the defense argument for them.

Defense attorney Emil Bove also asked for an instruction that "hush money is not illegal."

"What the defense is asking," Colangelo responded, "is for you to make their argument for them."

The judge agreed with Colangelo, saying that including that language would be "taking it too far."

"I don't think it's necessary," Merchan said.

Donald Trump said Wednesday that he didn't take the stand in his hush money trial because he didn't agree with the judge's rulings -- and because he was seemingly worried about information that could have come out during cross-examination.

"He made rulings that makes it very difficult to testify," Trump said in an interview on WABC Radio, referring to Judge Juan Merchan. "Anything I did, anything I did in the past, they can bring everything up, and you know what, I've had a great past -- but anything."

"The other reason is because they have no case," Trump said. "In other words, why would -- why testify when they have no case?"

Trump had originally indicated he would testify, saying on April 12 that "I would testify, absolutely." But he subsequently appeared to back away from the idea, falsely telling reporters on May 2 that the limited gag order in the case -- which prohibits extrajudicial statements about witnesses and jurors -- prevented him from testifying.

The next day in court, Judge Merchan directly addressed Trump to clarify that he has an "absolute right" to testify and that the limited gag order does not apply to his statements in court.

"I want to stress, Mr. Trump, that you have an absolute right to testify at trial, if that is what you decide to do after consultation with your attorneys," Merchan said.

-Lalee Ibssa, Soo Rin Kim and Kelsey Walsh