Live updates: Jury deliberations continue in Trump hush money trial | CNN Politics (2024)

This sketch from court shows Michael Cohen, right, in court on Tuesday, May 14, in New York.

Twenty two witnesses testified in Donald Trump’s criminal hush money trial. Prosecutors called 20 witnesses over 19 days in court, totaling over 50 hours of testimony.

Defense attorneys called two witnesses over two days, with around two hours of testimony.

Trump’s ex-attorney and fixer Michael Cohen, adult film actress Stormy Daniels and former White House aide Hope Hicks were among the high-profile witnesses.

Here’s who the jury heard from throughout the trial:

David Pecker — the former CEO of American Media Inc., the National Enquirer’s parent company — was the first witness called to testify. After more than 10 hours of testimony across four days, he offered illuminating details into how the infamous tabloid operated and conducted so-called “catch and kill” operations.Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime assistant at the Trump Organization, was called to testify briefly on April 26. Gary Farro, the former banker of Cohen, walked the jury through Cohen’s bank activity around the payment to Daniels.Dr. Robert Browning, the executive director of C-SPAN archives, was called so prosecutors could use his testimony to get records into evidence.Phillip Thompson, a director at a court reporting company, testified about how depositions work. Keith Davidson, the former lawyer for model and actress Karen McDougal as well as for Daniels, was on the stand fornearly six hoursover two days.Douglas Daus works for the Manhattan District Attorney’s High Technology Analysis Unit, and was assigned to analyze two iPhones thatbelonged to Cohenin the investigation related to Trump. They were obtained via a search warrant.Daus testified about the“unusual” amount of contactsand other things he found on Cohen’s phone. Hope Hicks, Trump’s longtime former aide, testified for a little less than three hours about her role as Trump’s 2016 campaign press secretary, the aftermath ofthe “Access Hollywood” tape releaseand Cohen’s payment toDaniels.Jeffrey McConney, a former Trump Organization controller, testified abouthow Cohen’s payments were listedin Trump’s financial documents.Deborah Tarasoff, the accounts payable supervisor in the accounting department at the Trump Organization, explained how checks were cut to Cohenin 2017 and testified thatinvoices over $10,000had to be approved by Trump or one of his sons.Sally Franklin, the senior vice president and executive managing editor for Penguin Random House publishing group, testified for46 minutes. Prosecutors used her testimony to enterexcerpts from Trump’s booksinto evidence.Stormy Daniels, who’s at the center of the hush money case, was on the stand for six hours and 10 minutes over two days of testimony. Daniels walked the jury through details about her alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006 and the $130,000 hush money payment from Trump’s ex-attorney Michael Cohen shortlybefore the 2016 election. Trump attorney Susan Necheles hammered down on Daniels in cross-examination to establish some of the ways she gained publicity and money from her story going public.Rebecca Manochio, a junior bookkeeper at the Trump Organization, testified for about 35 minutes. The prosecution used Manochio to submit invoices, documents and emails as evidence.Tracey Menzies, the senior vice president of production and creative operations at Harper Collins, spoke about one of the books Donald Trump co-authored, “Think Big: Make It Happen in Business and Life,” by Trump and Bill Zanker and read excerpts from the book. Madeleine Westerhout, a former personal assistant to Trump at the White House, detailed how the president preferred to work, his attention to detail and the reaction to the “Access Hollywood” tape. Daniel Dixon, an AT&T lead compliance analyst. He was used to enter phone records into evidence.Jennie Tomalin, Verizon senior analyst in executive relations, was also called to the stand to enter evidence into the records.Georgia Longstreet, who testified on May 3 and May 10, gave evidence about social media posts and text messages.Jaden Jarmel-Schneider, another paralegal from the Manhattan district attorney’s office, testified about analyzing phone records entered into evidence on May 10.Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney, is at the center of the hush money payment, and hence, was a key witness for the prosecution. Daniel Sitko, a paralegal in Trump attorney Todd Blanche’s law firm, was the defense’s first witness and submitted a phone chart into evidence.Robert Costello, an attorney connected with Michael Cohen, was the second defense witness and testified about the alleged pressure campaign against Cohen.

CNN’s Kara Scannell, Lauren Del Valle, Jeremy Herb and Celina Tebor contributed reporting to this post.

Former President Donald Trump and his team have been watching news coverage of the trial on a television that was brought into the room they are waiting in, two sources familiar with the setup tell CNN.

Trump has also spent a lot of his time watching clips of allies and surrogates defending him on television. The clips were sent to him and advisers at the courthouse, one source said.

No cameras are allowed inside the Manhattan courtroom where Donald Trump’s hush money trial is underway, but sketch artists are capturing the scenes.

This morning, the 12 jurors were read back testimonyfromwitnesses Michael Cohen and David Pecker, as well asportions of the judge’s instructionson the law before they left the courtroom again to continue deliberations.

In this sketch from court, former President Donald Trump listens and Judge Juan Merchan reads instructions to the jury on Thursday, May 30, in New York.

Judge Juan Merchan on Thursday.

Former President Donald Trump.

A jury of 12 New Yorkers — seven men and five women — will determine whether Donald Trump is guilty of 34 felony criminal charges of falsifying business records in connection with allegedly concealing reimbursem*nts to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen for a purported hush money scheme to silence adult film star Stormy Daniels about an affair.

Trump vehemently denies the relationship with Daniels and has pleaded not guilty to all charges.A felony conviction of a former president and current GOP frontrunner would be unprecedented.

Apart from the 12 jurors deliberating in Donald Trump’s hush money trial, six alternate jurors were selected before the opening statements began. They are not participating in deliberations, but they have to remain in the Manhattan courthouse.

Judge Juan Merchan on Wednesday thanked the alternates for their diligence before telling them they were not excused. “We’re not going to excuse you just yet. Please remain with us because there might be a need for you at some point during deliberations,” Merchan said.

“You’ve been with us for a long time, and you’ve been incredibly diligent, incredibly hard-working,” Merchan told the alternates.

Some background: New York criminal procedure law outlines several cases in which an alternate would replace a juror, and that juror would be dismissed, during a trial or deliberations.

Some of those reasons include if a juror gets sick “or other incapacity,” the juror is not available to serve on the jury anymore or a juror does not show up to court, among others.

The jury has now had the case in its hands for more than seven hours.

Thepanel of 12 New Yorkerswill determine whether former President Donald Trump isguilty of 34 felony chargesof falsifying business recordsrelated to a hush money paymentto an adult film star before the 2016 presidential election.

All 12 jurors have to be present to deliberate and they must be unanimous if they find Trump guilty on each count – on whether he committed the crime personally, acted in concert with others or both.

Will Scharf, an attorney for former President Donald Trump, said that Trump’s team is prepared to appeal a jury verdict if Trump is convicted.

“If there were to be a conviction here, which we believe would be a gravely unjust verdict, we would speedily appeal tothe New York Appellatedivision, potentially to the NewYork Court of Appeals aswell. And we’ll take that stepif we get there,” Scharf told CNN’s Jake Tapper.

“But so far, wethink that appears to be ahighly unlikely outcome here,” Scharf added.

Judge Juan Merchan deliveredhis instructions to jurorsyesterday before they began deliberations informer President Donald Trump’s hush money trial.

The jury asked in a note for the judge to re-read portions of them in court today.

Here’s what Merchan told jurors in his instructions yesterday:

Readthe full jury instructions here.

Donald Trump is accused by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office of34 state felony criminal chargesof falsifying business records, specifically pertaining to 11 invoices, 12 vouchers and 11 checks.

Prosecutors allege the payments were not a retainer for legal services, as they were recorded, butwere reimbursem*nts for paying off adult film star Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence and the life rights to her story in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. While on the stand, Trump’s former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen implicated Trump in the hush money scheme, saying he doled out $130,000 withTrump’s approval and was promised reimbursem*nt.

Paying hush money is not a crime. What prosecutors alleged is that Trump intentionally falsified documents to conceal his repayment to Cohen under the guise of a retainer for legal services to hide damaging information from voters during the 2016 presidential election.

According to the statute, for Trump to be guilty of a felony charge of falsifying business records, jurors must find Trump not only “cause(d) a false entry in the business records of an enterprise” while acting “with intent to defraud,” but also that the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

Prosecutors allege the underlying crime was trying to illegally influence the 2016 presidential election.

A newNPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist pollis the latest to suggest that any verdict in Donald Trump’s hush money trial is unlikely to have a major effect on voters’ choices come November.

Those figures are similar to other recent polling on the topic, including a MayQuinnipiac pollwhich found that 65% of registered voters said that if Trump were convicted it would be unlikely to change their position on the presidential race.

Most notably in the new polls, just a small share of people who support Trump say that a guilty verdict would dissuade them from supporting him.

ACNN poll conducted in Aprilas the trial’s jury was being selected found that only 24% of registered voters who support Trump said they might even reconsider their support if Trump were convicted of a crime.

Questions like this do not always align with the reality of how voters behave and often overstate the potential for movement, as many poll respondents use them as opportunities to express opinions they already hold.

For example, 24% of people who already support Trump in both the Marist and Quinnipiac polls say a conviction would make them MORE likely to support Trump, meaning that while a conviction might strengthen their loyalty for Trump, it wouldn’t change their vote.

Likewise, although almost 30% of Democrats in each poll say they would be less likely to back Trump if convicted, less than 10% currently do support Trump in the presidential race, meaning most of those who say they would be “less likely” to vote for Trump did not support him in the first place.

Former US President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump exits the courtroom for a break in his criminal trial at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City, on May 30.

With the readback concluded, Trump stands and flashes a thumbs up to someone seated in the gallery.

Holding a stack of papers, he exits with his legal team, pumping his fist as he enters the courtroom hallway.

The judge is off the bench, and prosecutors have also left the courtroom.

If you are just joining us, here’s what you missed:

A third note: The jury sent a new note this morning at 9:32 a.m. Here were their requests:

Remember:The jury was not given a written copy of Merchan’s charging instructions when they began deliberating yesterday. While most federal judges will send the actual document with the jury as it deliberates, New York state courts forbid this practice.

You can read the full jury instructions here.

Testimony reading: After the jury was dismissed yesterday, attorneys for both sides hashed out which sections of testimony would be read to the jurors.Here are the pieces of testimony the jury requested:

Scene in the courtroom: In the testimony re-reading, one court reporter read the questions as the lawyer, while the court reporter sitting in the witness seat read the answers to the questions. Both women were reading with classic New York accents, while most of the jurors watched and some took notes.

The court reporters read the transcript word-for-word, but left out the objections. If an objection was sustained, they skipped over that Q&A.

Former President Donald Trump falsely claimed Wednesday that Judge Juan Merchan “is not requiring aunanimousdecision on the fake charges against me.”

Trump made the claim in asocial media postin which he described Merchan’s supposed position as “RIDICULOUS, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND UNAMERICAN.” He was echoing assertions that had beencirculating among conservativesafter Fox News anchor John Robertswroteon social media earlier on Wednesday that “Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict.”

Facts First:Trump’s claim inaccurately depicts what Merchan said.

Merchantold the jury in his instructions on Wednesdaythat their verdict “must beunanimous” on each of the 34 counts that Trump faces and that, to convict Trump of felony falsification of business records, they would have tounanimously agree that he falsified business records with the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime – that other crime being a violation of a New York election law.

Prosecutors provided three theories of what unlawful means Trump used.Merchan told the jury: “Although you must concludeunanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not beunanimousas to what those unlawful means were. In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following:(1)violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA;(2)the falsification of other business records; or(3)violation of tax laws.”

Lee Kovarsky, a University of Texas law professor who has been following the trial,put it this wayon social media on Wednesday: “If a law says NO VEHICLES IN THE PARK & list of vehicles includes mopeds and motorcycles, all the instruction means is that you needunanimousconclusion of vehicle but notunanimouson whether vehicle was moped or harley.”

We’ve moved on to the jury’s fourth request for testimony that will be read back to them in court: Michael Cohen discussing a 2015 meeting at Trump Tower.

This is the same meeting that David Pecker discussed in testimony read back to the jurors a short time ago.

Cohen was responding to questions from prosecutor Susan Hoffinger in this portion of his testimony. Trump’s longtime fixer rehashed the meeting between then-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, Trump and himself. It included discussion about how the magazine could help Trump’s campaign, including by potentially giving Cohen advance notice of damagin stories about Trump and trying to stop it, he testified.

Trump is writing notes on Post-its and passing them to his attorneys as the testimony readback continues. He handed one to Emil Bove and another to Todd Blanche.

Blanche passed him a note back, and Trump hunched over to read it before placing it on the table.

Trump has also turned to Boveto whisper something, and continues to pass notes back and forth with the attorneys.

This is happening as the jury hears the court reporters read the cross-examination of David Pecker about the Trump Tower meeting.

The court reporter on the witness stand has her pages of the transcript marked with blue tabs. There have been a few brief pauses as they make sure they’re all on the same page to read back.

Merchan and his staff attorney have been following along with the readback on a screen together, while three prosecutors sitting in a row at their table each read the transcripts from individual binders.

We’re moving on to another request from the jury: for the court reporters to re-read former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker’s testimony about a meeting at Trump Tower in 2015.

The first part of that testimony being read back in court includes Pecker recalling the timing of the meeting, which he said was held in August, and that Donald Trump, Trump’s fixer Michael Cohen and longtime aide Hope Hicks were present.

The reporters go on to read a portion of Pecker’s testimony where he says that he expected there to be women coming forward to sell stories about Trump during his presidential campaign — both because Trump was a well-known eligible bachelor and because it’s common when people run for public office in general.

In the testimony, Pecker recalls saying he would notify Cohen if he was aware of any such stories on the market.

Jurors then hear the portion of Pecker’s testimony where he says he believed it could be “mutually beneficial” for the National Enquirer and for Trump for the magazine to write positive stories about Trump and write negative stories about his opponent.

Pecker then responds to questions about helping Cohen potentially purchase stories about Trump with the intent of not running them, and about how that specifically would benefit Trump’s campaign.

The first exchange reporters are re-reading in court is from David Pecker’s testimony about a phone call directly with Trump.

The portion of the transcript read back to the jury includes questions about whether Pecker remembered the call, and whether the former National Enquirer publisher believed Trump was aware of former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s description of an affair between the two.

In that testimony, Pecker recalls that Trump told him, “I spoke to Michael” regarding the situation, and that Trump had said over the phone that McDougal was a “nice girl.”

The court reporters are telling the jurors who is speaking at the start of each passage they read. They note that the third passage was cross-examination by Trump lawyer Emil Bove before reading back the testimony.

As the reporters finish reading the first exchange, Trump is leaning over to speak to Bove.

The court reporters are reading the transcript word-for-word, but leaving out the objections. If an objection was sustained, they are skipping over the exchange.

One court reporter is reading the questions while the court reporter sitting in the witness seat reads the answers to the questions.

The two court reporters, both women, are reading as the lawyer and witness, both speaking with classic New York accents.

Most of the jurors are watching the court reporters reading. Some are taking notes.

The first one is David Pecker’s testimony about the call with Trump.

Judge Juan Merchan has now finished re-reading the portions of the jury instructions that jurors requested.

When Merchan finished reading,Trump wrote a note and passed it to his attorney Todd Blanche.

After re-reading through parts of the jury instructions, Judge Juan Merchan asks the jurors, “Was that responsive to you?”

The jury foreperson answers, “yes.”

Some jurors are taking notes as Judge Juan Merchan moves through this section:

“The people allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152.

Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.”

And now for the “unlawful means” explanation: “Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.

In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.”

Judge Juan Merchan is re-reading the definitions in the law for enterprise, business record and intent.

“As I previously explained, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so. In order to prove an intent to defraud, the people need not prove that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud any particular person or entity. A general intent to defraud any person or entity suffices. Intent to defraud is also not constricted to an intent to deprive another of property or money and can extend beyond economic concerns,” Merchan says.

Merchan also goes over the part of the law that raises the charge to a felony: “For the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.Under our law, although the people must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.”

Trump’s chin is resting on his chest as Judge Juan Merchan goes through requirement to find the defendant guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree.

This part of the jury instructions reads, in part:

Judge Juan Merchan is now re-reading the part of his instructions to the jury regarding how the law addresses the concept of an accomplice.

The instructions say in part: “Under our law, Michael Cohen is an accomplice because there is evidence that he participated in a crime based upon conduct involved in the allegations here against the defendant.”

“Our law is especially concerned about the testimony of an accomplice who implicates another in the commission of a crime, particularly when the accomplice has received, expects or hopes for a benefit in return for his testimony.”

The takeaway for jurors is that, “Even if you find the testimony of Michael Cohen to be believable, you may not convict the defendant solely upon that testimony unless you also find that it was corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime,” Merchan tells them.

Trump is leaning back now in his chair with his eyes closed.

Judge Juan Merchan, meanwhile, is moving through the “credibility of witnesses” section for his instructions to the jury.

This part of the jury instructions says they “may consider whether a witness had, or did not have, a motive to lie” and “may consider whether a witness hopes for or expects to receive a benefit for testifying.”

Judge Juan Merchan is now re-reading the part of his instructions to the jury that cover reasonable doubt.

The instructions say in part: “Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you so firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt that you have no reasonable doubt of the existence of any element of the crime or of the defendant’s identity as the person who committed the crime.”

“Whatever your verdict may be, it must not rest upon baseless speculation. Nor may it be influenced in any way by bias, prejudice, sympathy or by a desire to bring an end to your deliberations or to avoid an unpleasant duty,” Merchan adds.

Trump is leaning back in his chair and is turned toward the judge as he speaks to the jury.

Judge Juan Merchan is turned in his chair to face the jury.

One of the jurors is scribbling notes as Judge Juan Merchan re-reads the rain metaphor section about inferring from facts.

“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,” Merchan reads.

These instructions were originally read to the jury yesterday, but the jurors have requested parts of them be read to them again.

Judge Juan Merchan has started reading the jury instructions back.

The reading came after the jury foreman asked aloud in court to have the instructions read back first.

Merchan said earlier that pages six to 35 will be read.

You can read the full jury instructions and follow along here.

The jury is entering the courtroom. The juror alternates are in the room, too.

Meanwhile, Judge Juan Merchan is rereading the notes.

Donald Trump briefly fiddled with his tie as Merchan began rereading the notes.

Judge Juan Merchan says the jury has requested several parts of his instructions to them be re-read, including a metaphor about rain.

Here’s that metaphor, which was originally read in court yesterday:

Judge Juan Merchan says he will read pages six to 35 of the jury instructions.

More context: The jury was not given a written copy of Merchan’s charging instructions when they began deliberating yesterday. While most federal judges will send the actual document with the jury as it deliberates, New York state courts forbid this practice.

Merchan told the court moments ago that the jury is requesting the re-reading of the judge’s instructions starting with how the jury considers facts and what inferences they can be drawn from it, including a metaphor about rain.

The jury is also asking to hear the instructions related to the charges for count one.

The full jury instructions can be found here.

The second request in the note is for headphones to use with the evidence laptop.

Judge Juan Merchan says they can provide them headphones or speakers. Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass suggests they give them both.

Judge Juan Merchan also said he would include all of the disputed witness testimony that had been discussed yesterday in the readback to the jury.

That includes another section pointed out by prosecutor Joshua Steinglass.

Remember: After the jury was dismissed Wednesday, attorneys for both sides hashed out which sections of testimony would be read to the jurors.They requested three sections of testimony involving AMI chief David Pecker, and one section involving Michael Cohen’s testimony about the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting.

This morning’s note includes two requests.

Judge Juan Merchan says the jury is requesting the re-reading of the judge’s instructions starting with how the jury considers facts and what inferences they can be drawn from it, including a metaphor about rain.

The jury is also asking to hear the instructions related to the charges for count one.

Judge Juan Merchan says the court received a new note this morning.

The note was sent at 9:32 a.m. ET.

Judge Juan Merchan is in the courtroom as the jury is set to continue to deliberate on the hush money case against Donald Trump.

The jurors will likely start the day off with a readback of four separate parts of witness testimony as well as a repeat of the judge’s instructions on the law—requests that they submitted to the court while deliberating yesterday.

Here are the pieces of testimony the jury requested:

Jurors also want to re-hear Merchan’s instructions on the law that he had given them yesterday.

Merchan has asked the jury to clarify this morning whether they wanted the entire, hourlong presentation to be read back, or if there were just portions of it that they needed to hear one more time.

Trump is now in the courtroom alongside his attorney Todd Blanche. Trump quickly scanned the galley right and left on his walk in.

His son Eric Trump is the only member of the Trump family in court today.

Trump, using his finger, summoned Eric to stand up so he could talk to him.

Former President Donald Trump addressed reporters before heading into court Thursday, claiming he would love to answer their questions, but he couldn’t due to his gag order.

As he does most mornings before his trial begins, Trump took aim at the charges brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, again claiming that they were politically-motivated.

“I haven’t seen one legal scholar or expert in the law saying that this case should have been brought,” he said.

Like he did yesterday, Trump referenced media mentions about the case, reading out different analyses on the case to reporters.

Finishing his remarks, Trump called the charges a “disgrace” and again criticized the security present outside the courthouse.

“This is a very sad day for America. The whole world is watching. And it’s a very sad day for New York.” “The whole system is rigged,” he claimed.

The jury’s request to hear testimony again around ameeting at Trump Toweris a natural place to start deliberations, CNN legal analysts say.

Prosecutors say David Pecker, Donald Trump and Michael Cohen were all present at a 2015 meeting at Trump Tower. It’s the moment when Pecker allegedly agreed to be the “eyes and ears” for Trump’s campaign and flag any negative stories to Cohen.

“So it’s a perfectly natural,logical place for the jury tostart,” he added.

The jury deliberated for more than four hours yesterday after getting the case.

CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams said these requests likely suggest the jury is trying to understand Trump’s intent. They are trying to figure out what Pecker, Trump and Cohen talked about and if Trump knew he was directing or participating in a scheme, Williams said.

The defense previously argued that the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels was carried out by Cohen alone, while the prosecution has been trying to show Trump knew what was happening the whole time.

Former President Donald Trump exits Trump Tower to attend his criminal trial over charges that he falsified business records at Manhattan criminal court in New York City on May 30.

Donald Trump departed Trump Tower moments ago and is en route to the downtown Manhattan courthouse, where a jury is set to continue a second day of deliberations to determine his legal fate in his historic criminal hush money trial.

A tense waiting game is underway as the jury will likely start the day off with a readback of four separate parts of witness testimony as well as a repeat of the judge’s instructions on the law—requests that they submitted to the court while deliberating on Wednesday.

The 12 jurors— seven men and five women — will determine whether Trump is guilty of 34 felony criminal charges of falsifying business records in connection with allegedly concealing reimbursem*nts to his then-lawyer for a purported hush money scheme to silence an adult film star about an affair shortly before the 2016 presidential election.

Jurors will return to court at 9:30 a.m. ET to resume deliberations.

Trump and the attorneys will remain in the courthouse while the jury deliberates. Trump’s team has a war room of sorts and will be in there at times during jury deliberation.

As the jury deliberates, it has to decide whether it will convict or acquit Donald Trump on each of the 34 different counts he is facing. The jury must be unanimous in its decision.

This means there are multiple possible outcomes. CNN anchor and legal expert Laura Coates breaks it down:

Mixed verdict: Guilty on some, acquittal on othersGuilty on all countsAcquittal on all countsHung jury: on all or some chargesDirected verdict: The judge may say he doesn’t think the jury’s decision is appropriate and decides on a different outcome. However, Judge Juan Merchan is unlikely to do that.

The jurors’ request to re-hearthe judge’s jury instructionsindicates that the instructions “were way too much for any human being to absorb and make sense of,” CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said Wednesday.

While it’s unusual for juries to want to hear the whole set of instructions again, it is common for them to come back with a request to hear a much more specific part of instructions, Honig explained.

But ultimately, this jury request“underscores the craziness of not sending the jury instructions back,” Honig said.

Judge Juan Merchan went through “50-something pages of legal instructions” Wednesday morning, Honig noted, adding that while most federal judges will send the actual document with the jury as it deliberates, New York state courts forbid this practice.

What’s happening this morning: Merchan has asked the jury to clarify this morning whether they wanted the entire, hourlong presentation to be read back, or if there were just portions of it that they needed to hear one more time.

You can readthe full jury instructions here.

The jury in Donald Trump’shistoric criminal hush money trial will continue to deliberate on the case this morning.

The panel of 12 New Yorkers will determine whether Trump is guilty of 34 felony charges of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.

Jurors were asked to surrender their phones during deliberations, and can only discuss the case when all 12 of them are together at the Manhattan courthouse.

Here’s what happensduring jury deliberations:

The foreperson will deliver the verdict for each count after deliberations are over. The jury must be unanimous in its decision.

Former President Donald Trump sits in a courtroom at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York on Thursday.

The jury in Donald Trump’s New York hush money trial finished its first day of deliberations Wednesday without reaching a verdict after meeting for more than four-and-a-half hours.

Jurors will return on Thursday morning at 9:30 a.m. ET to resume deliberations.

Wednesday afternoon, the jury asked to hear a readback of four separate parts of witness testimony, including from former National Enquirer chief David Pecker and Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen.

Here are the pieces of testimony the jury requested:

Jurors also want to re-hear Judge Juan Merchan’s instructions on the law that he had given them earlier Wednesday morning.

Here are the key things to know about those instructions:

The mood flips from torpor to high tension in a second on the high-security 15th floor of the grimy old Manhattan courthouse where a jury willresume deliberationsonDonald Trump’sfate Thursday morning.

Seven men and five women jurors, headed by a foreperson who grew up in Ireland, weredeep into a fourth hourof their historic task when they shattered the oppressive tedium of Wednesday afternoon.

A buzzer demanding the judge’s attention sounded, suddenly sending lawyers, court staff, police and reporters rushing for their seats. Then Trump arrived from his holding room, tugging heavily on his lapels.

In the end, the alarm did not herald a verdict in the hush money trial that could brand the 45th president a convicted felon. It was a note from the jury asking for a read back of several long and dense pieces of testimony, from former tabloid kingpin David Pecker and the star prosecution witness, Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen.

Their testimony gets right to the question of Trump’s intent in seeking to snuff out scandalous stories about his personal life, which may shed light on the payoff to adult film star Stormy Daniels facilitated by Cohen, according to prosecutors, under his boss’ orders. (Trump has denied the alleged affair with Daniels and pleaded not guilty in the case.)

As Judge Juan Merchan and lawyers combed transcripts filled with complex and sometimes seedy testimony, the buzzer buzzed again, with a new request from the locked down jury.

Reporters in an overflow courtroom groaned when it emerged that jurors wanted to hear Merchan’s instructions — which he spent a painstaking hour reading aloud Wednesday morning — all over again.

The jury’s desire to wade through testimony suggested that no verdict was imminent — and that they grasped the magnitude of their duty in a case that is critical to Trump’s reputation and the nation’s future.

Read the full analysis.

Jurors deliberated for more than four hours on Wednesday and sent two notes with requests: One asking the judge to re-read some testimony and the other to re-hear Judge Juan Merchan’s jury instructions.

The first note contained four requests, according to Merchan.

The second note came shortly after the first and jurors requested to re-hear jury instructions.

“We the jury request to rehear the judge’s instructions,” the note read.

In New York, jury instructions are not sent back. CNN legal analyst Elie Honig noted that “Judge Juan Merchan went through 50-something pages of legal instructions” this morning. He added that while most federal judges will send the actual document with the jury as it deliberates, New York State courts forbid this practice.

We are in the seventh week of court proceedings in Donald Trump’s historic hush money criminal trial.

To refresh your memory, here arethe key moments and witnessesfrom the trial so far:

April 15:Trial began with jury selection.

April 19:A panel of12 jurors and six alternateswas selected.

April 22:The prosecution and defense made their opening statements. Former tabloid boss David Pecker was called to testify.

April 23:Judge Juan Merchan held aSandoval hearingfor Trump’s alleged gag order violations, but reserved his decision. Pecker continued his testimony.

April 25:While Trump sat in the Manhattan courtroom listening to Pecker’s testimony, theSupreme Court in Washington, D.C., heard argumentson the matter of his immunity in special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case against him.

April 26:Pecker’s direct questioning and cross-examination concluded. Trump’s former longtime assistant Rhona Graff was called to testify briefly. Michael Cohen’s former banker Gary Farro was then called to the stand.

April 30:Farro’s testimony concluded. Prosecutors then called Dr. Robert Browning, the executive director of C-SPAN archives, and Philip Thompson who works for a court reporting company.Then,Keith Davidson, the former attorney for Daniels and McDougal, took the stand. Also, Merchan fined Trump $9,000 for violating a gag order.

May 2:Davidson’s testimony concluded. Digital evidence analystDouglas Dauswas called to testify.

May 3:After Daus finished testifying, Georgia Longstreet, a paralegal at the district attorney’s office, spoke about reviewing Trump’s social media posts for this case. She was followed by Hope Hicks, once a longtime Trump aide. Herhighly-anticipated testimonywas a little less than three hours.

May 6:Prosecutors calledtwo witnesseswho worked in accounting in the Trump Organization:Jeffrey McConney, a former Trump Org. controller, andDeborah Tarasoff, an accounts payable supervisor.

May 7:Prosecutors calledSally Franklin, the senior vice president and executive managing editor for Penguin Random House publishing group.After her testimony,Stormy Danielswas called to the stand.

May 9: Stormy Daniels finished her testimony, with the defense trying to undermine her credibility by pointing out inconsistencies in her story on cross-examination.

May 10: Former White House aide Madeleine Westerhout’s testimony concluded. Then prosecution called several custodial witnesses to the stand.

May 13: Former Trump attorney and the prosecution’s key witness, Michael Cohen, started testifying.

May 14: The prosecution completed direct questioning of Cohen and Trump’s defense began cross-examination.

May 16: Trump’s defense grilled Cohen, putting into question a key 2016 October call and asking him about the times he lied under oath.

May 20: Cohen wrapped up his testimony and the prosecution rested its case. The defense called its first witness, Daniel Sitko, a paralegal for defense attorney Todd Blanche. After a short round of questioning, the defense called up Robert Costello, a lawyer with a connection to Cohen.

May 21: Costello’s testimony concluded. Then the defense rested its case without calling Trump to take the stand. The judge and attorneys for both sides also hashed out jury instructions.

May 28: The defense and prosecution presented their closing arguments. The court ran long on this day.

May 29: Judge Merchan went through jury instructions and the jurors began deliberating. They sent two notes, requesting to re-hear the judge’s jury instructionsand one askingto be read back some testimonyfrom witnesses Michael Cohen and David Pecker.

Read a full timeline of key momentshere.

Throughout his closing arguments on Tuesday, defense attorney Todd Blanche continued to raise the concept of reasonable doubt with the jury – even punctuating the conclusion of his closing argument with “10 reasons” why jurors should have reasonable doubt about the case.

Here’s the full list, according to Blanche:

Michael Cohen created the invoices.There’s no evidence Donald Trump knew the invoices were sent.There was “absolutely” no evidence of any intent to defraud.There was no attempt to commit or conceal another crime.There was “absolutely” no agreement to influence the 2016 election.AMI, the owner of the National Enquirer, would have run the doorman’s story no matter what if it was true.Karen McDougal did not want her story published.Stormy Daniels’ story was already public in 2011.There was manipulation of evidence. Michael Cohen. “He’s the human embodiment of reasonable doubt.”

Why this matters: Prosecutors needed to make a case with credible arguments that remove any reasonable doubt and compel jurors to convict Trump. The presence of any reasonable doubt is enough to acquit, experts say.

Before the jury received instructions and began deliberating, the defense and prosecution gave their closing arguments in Donald Trump’s New York hush money trial, offering the jury opposing stories about the payment made toStormy Danielsin October 2016 and the subsequent reimbursem*nt to Michael Cohen the following year. Which narrative the jury believes could ultimately decide Trump’s legal fate.

Here are takeaways from the closing arguments:

Defense argues jurors cannot convict on Michael Cohen’s words: Todd Blanche was up first, and he spent much of his two-hour closing argument attacking the credibility of Cohen, Trump’s former fixer.

Prosecution defends Cohen but argues there’s more to the case: Over four hours and 41 minutes, Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass pushed back against Blanche’s attacks, arguing there was plenty of corroboration of Cohen’s testimony, both from documents and the testimony of others, particularly former AMI chief David Pecker.