counts, all right, it is very easy for this jury if they're having a fight about whether to convict or not convict, to compromise and say, all right, well, we'll find him guilty of these two counts out of the 34. and will feel like they're throwing him a break. they're not, by the way, because the maximum sentence on each of the counts is four years in jail. and that, even if he was convicted of all the counts, those would be the sentences would be run concurrently, not consecutively, so, really one count is as dangerous to him as being convicted of all 34 counts. >> do you agree? >> i do. i do. i think going into this, if i'm the prosecution, i'm feeling bullish that a conviction is on the way. >> thank you so much for being with us on this historic day. we're going to continue our coverage. but yasmin vossoughian outside the courthouse, what is going on in the courthouse right now, fair to say, has never been more

important. >> reporter: never more important. they're going through the counts, and then they're associating each count obviously with the invoices and with the checks as well. and let me remind folks, by the way, i'm doing this all day, so i may sound like i'm repeating myself, but i do think it is important when it comes to the counts, you have 12 counts when it comes to ledgers, 11 counts, invoices, 11 counts, checks as well. and let me quickly read you this part in which they talk about the count. in order to find defendant guilt on count one, on or about february 14th, 2017, in the count of new york and elsewhere, the defendant personally or by acting in concert with another person or person made or caused

the false records of the business records of an enterprise, specifically invoice to michael cohen. number two, the defendant did so with intent to defraud, intent to commit another crime, or aid in commission thereof. and he goes on to say that there are 34 counts that are exactly the same as the one that he just read and he will not repeat each and every count the way in which he just spoke. however, what he is doing now is he's going by date. so, you remember, these checks began in, as he mentioned, february 2017. there were 11 checks, to pay out, $35,000 each over the 11-month period and he is associating each date to each check and in each invoice as well. this is an incredibly important aspect, i believe, for these jurors as they continue to take

notes inside this courtroom. and another note, guys, by the way, we're hearing from laura jarrett inside the courtroom, who is an attorney herself, she says, saying these jury instructions are complicated is a huge understatement. remember, they cannot take the jury instructions into the deliberation room. so they're going to have to ask questions of this judge throughout their deliberation. they can't look back at a paper copy, for instance, and say merchan said this about count one or this is the definition of intent. some of the things we read throughout the last hour or so. instead, they have to rely on their notes, rely on other jurors who were taking notes as well or listening intently or ask questions of the judge, the prosecution and the defense as well. 34 counts, incredibly complicated, election law as well. by the way, something like this has never been tried before.

and these are jurors, civilian jurors, that don't necessarily know the law, despite the fact there are two lawyers that are on -- in the jury. it is going to be hard for them. i imagine there are going to be a lot of questions that are going to be asked by this jury throughout the deliberations. one more thing, because merchan has now gotten to the last count, it seems as if we're at 11:03 right now, just about 57 minutes or so into the jury instructions. he said they would last about an hour. just a couple of minutes left until he wraps these jury instructions and then we move to deliberations, guys. >> indeed we do. and yasmin, as you said, 11:03 east, 8:03 pacific time. with us now to continue our conversation, catherine christian, former manhattan assistant district attorney, danny cevallos, katie phang, former trial attorney, host of

"the katie phang show" saturdays at noon on msnbc. the jury just about has all their instructions now. we talked about how important these instructions are, anything that came out in this past hour that stood out to you? >> we were just talking about it, when yasmin was speaking, they don't really have the instructions. that's a part that kind of sticks with me a little bit. >> what do you mean, they don't really have them? >> you have merchan reading them. it is one thing to hear it, it is another thing to have it and see it and touch it. >> i'm one of those people. i need to see it. >> i am too. and catherine was explaining, in new york, this is how it goes. they don't get the jury instructions in the jury room. when you have laura jarrett. plaining to us from inside the courtroom there may be notes being taken, but these jury instructions are kind of complex. they're not your straightforward assault and battery, for example, jury instructions. it gets me a little bit wary that the jurors will go in and they will not have the benefit of being able to access these jury instructions. >> charles, this is something

that has never happened. these charges have never occurred. how do you, as a jury member, best understand charges that are unique? >> well, number one, i do think we can expect to see some notes at some point from the jury to the judge asking for clarification or to repeat the actual charges themselves. number two, this is where the jury dynamic becomes incredibly important because what is going to happen is someone is going to assert themselves in those deliberations as i don't want to say necessarily the know it all, but the authority who is going to be looked to do explain these things. that's where you may sort of get either some friction or some level of coalesce ens around an idea or around the understanding they may have on these jury instructions. so it is really critical as to how these instructions are understood because, like you said, it is not incredibly straightforward and i do think you can get a little tricky. however, based off what we heard and the way judge merchan has

laid these things out, if i'm the prosecution, i do feel good about the different choices that the jurors have in terms of a route toward a conviction. >> he's going through intent. intent means conscious objective or purpose, intent to defraud is when someone's conscious objective or purpose is to do so. so, he's trying to be specific and guiding them when they're discussing how do i know, you know, donald trump's intent was to do something. they have at least this conscious objective or purpose to go with. i guess if they remember that specific line since they don't have the instructions with them. i'm wondering, danny, you know, as soon as the jury goes into that jury room, we're all left waiting. and donald trump has to stay at the courthouse, right? what goes on behind the scenes during that time? >> when the jury -- as soon as that door shuts, that's how i like to formulate my closing

arguments, because i think about the jury and what you do, what do 12 strangers do, 12 people who sort of know each other a little better after a couple of weeks, who maybe have awkward lunch conversations, but beyond that, they're mostly strangers. what do they do when they go in the room? i like to think about the dynamics. throughout the trial, i think all the attorneys are thinking about who is the juror that is going to take charge? for example, by now, maybe people are thinking there are a couple of lawyers on the jury. one of the lawyers may assert himself and say, look, i'll take charge, i'll help marshal the facts and the evidence and the law. you might get the opposite. a lawyer who says, all i ever did was corporate stuff this is not my ball of wax, one of you folks, maybe you take the lead here. and, you know what, you find as much as we try to guess and use our best estimates, we the lawyers are usually wrong about how the dynamics end up working out. but that doesn't stop us from trying to guess. so, what you might see is the jurors get in there, and they say, well, let's start with count one. or let's start with a particular witness.

there is no rule. and so, they're really left in many ways to their own devices. and without the written jury instructions, it makes it more complicated. this is the part that poses the greatest challenge for prosecutors. the facts are very much in their favor. and, yes, on the law, there are a lot of avenues to a conviction. i think the challenge is getting the jury to understand them. they're complicated. look at all of us sitting around. i find myself struggling to follow what's going on, and this is something i've been studying for the better part of the year, and it is challenging. there are articles written by very smart people online, trying to decipher how this law will work in this novel application. so, if we find it challenging, 12 strangers, with no real expertise in this particular area of the law are going to struggle with it, even if the facts are overwhelmingly in my view in favor of the prosecution. >> i actually am having this kind of eureka moment, it might be better for the prosecution without the jury instructions because if it is so complex, and

the jury can go with its gut, right? and they can say, he clearly was doing this, so he would not impact negatively his 2016 presidential election chances and so instead of getting in the weeds of, do you have the intent to get over the hurdle to go for the misdmeanor to the felony -- it might be just be, if it looks like a duck and smells like a duck and walk like a duck -- >> the facts are shady. if nothing else, they show some kind of deception was going on. so for the prosecution, i think the best outcome, katie, i agree with you, is to basically transfer that deception that is just as plain as day in the facts and say, that deception is enough. that is basically the requisite intent to conceal another crime and there you go. i think that is the easiest avenue. maybe that is aided by not having the jury instructions. but these are complex. and that is a challenge for the

state. >> and, catherine, i've been thinking about this. it is a prosecution's responsibility to prove, right, guilt. and the defense doesn't have to do that. but how important and what victories are both for the defense and the prosecution the judge's instructions. it seems as though that's almost a secondary phase of a trial, specifically you have such complex and long jury instructions. how much of a victory is it for the defense or for the prosecution, what the judge finally instructs? >> well, for the prosecution, you always say you want the law. i've talked to people and lawyers who have talked to jurors after and it is shocking, they didn't -- it was their gut feeling. it wasn't, well, we were focused in on what was conscious and objective mean. it is just -- i've been dinged. i've never been part of a jury, i've been dinged during jury selection. the dynamic in that room, it

could just be this is too complex, like katie and danny said, and there is a reason why josh steinglass over and over yesterday talked about this was done for the campaign, this was done for the campaign, he might not have been elected without this payment. he wanted to have it in the jury's head, this is a simple case, simple case, conspiracy hatched by pecker and cohen and trump back in august 2015, squashed the negative stories, we're going to pay off these people, catch and kill, and then stormy daniels was paid, and that was right after the "access hollywood" tape and i think josh steinglass said that and but for that, donald trump may not have been elected. so, that's very simple. it is a very simple case with complex jury instructions. >> that's the common sense approach. >> if you recall, from the very beginning, we -- most of us were talking about the way that the prosecution needs to simplify the narrative as easily as possible. particularly when you're talking about summation. you needed to give the jury something to walk away from that

they could digest, very easily, bite size bit by bit to understand what is the question that we are called to answer and then how do we go about doing it and the way that steinglass laid it out is exactly that. it gets straight to the point in terms of understanding what is the story here, and why is it that we should find this person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. >> out to vaughn hillyard with an update from the courtroom. vaughn? >> reporter: this is where judge merchan is getting into the weeds of the tiers in which the jury has to determine donald trump's potential guilt here. you're talking about number one, tier one, the cause -- to cause the falsification of the business records with the intent to commit another crime. that other crime is really tier two. that particular crime is new york election law 17.152, which talks about conspireing to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. judge merchan telling this jury

that conspireing to promote the election of a person is different than being cognizant of or knowing about a conspiracy, that the individual must have partaken in that conspiracy. that's level two there, the violation of the new york state election law to influence the 2016 election by unlawful means, unlawful means is tier three. judge merchan is explaining that they have three different options that the prosecution presented that justifies unlawful means. those being violation of the federal election campaign act, which particularly yesterday during closing arguments josh steinglass pointed to the jury as a violation of corporate donation to a political campaign. number two, falsification of other business records. josh steinglass yesterday in closing arguments articulated several other falsification of business records including banking info, the creation of those false llcs by michael

cohen. the third option is the violation of tax laws, which, again, in closing arguments yesterday, josh steinglass articulated that by grossing up and designating it as income, the money that went from donald trump to michael cohen, that it was a violation of tax law because if it had just been a reimbursement, there would not have had to have been any taxes paid. this is the complicated part of this, but what judge merchan is telling them is all of the facets here that the laws that they are being asked to find whether donald trump was guilty of, and the way in which each of them are tethered together by the top tier that is the falsification of the business record and the causing of that. >> and, vaughn, thanks. charles, wondering, the fact that the judge is repeating in its totality the instructions, pertaining to what vaughn was talking about, and some jurors

apparently taking notes, others are not. i'm thinking, we're already two minutes past the one hour mark of the judge's instructions. it seems as it may be going on for a little bit more. but, when you're a jury member, taking notes because of this is very kind of logical. >> you have to think, too, he's repeating, this must be important. >> this must be important, right. but then going forward, what happens? >> right, so, and that's exactly sort of the difficulty and danny alluded to it earlier of trying to figure out what is going on in the minds of the jurors. everyone has different learning styles. some people are auditory in terms of how they pick up information. some people really have to see things written down. so without the actual jury instructions or a special verdict form, that would sort of lead those people who need to see written down, you know, just making notes about what is intent what does it mean to cause something, what does it mean to cause someone to make a

falsified business record. all of these things are things people may have question about. some of it may be the actual crimes themselves. and some of it may be a technical term like intent that you thought you knew the meaning of, but the judge said something to you about the meaning of that and the law that you're looking at differently. credibility is another thing. he's going to instruct on how to evaluate credibility and there may be things that people hear and say, i never thought about that. that might be important and they note things down. >> he's now going into the difference between motive and intent. intent, again, key word, right. so motive, he says, on the other hand, is the reason a person chooses to engage in criminal conduct. in this case, intent is an element of the crime of falsifying business records and first degree. in this case, evidence of a motive or evidence of a lack of motive may be considered, if you find from the evidence that a defendant had a motive to commit the crime or the charge, that is a circumstance you may wish to consider.

if the defendant had no motive, that is a circumstance you can consider to determine that the defendant is not guilty of the charged crime. so, this distinction between motive and intent, and some of this is still being kind of updated as we go in the document. so, a couple of the words, know, might be tweaked a little bit and aren't direct quotes from merchan there. is it important for the jury, catherine, to understand that distinction between motive and intent? >> yes, because the prosecution does not have to prove motive. we always -- human nature, why it this person do this, why, why, why? and here is the judge saying, that's not required. you don't have to. the prosecution did not have to prove to you why donald trump did this. you may consider it as part of, you know, your -- whether he's going to be guilty or not guilty, it is not a required element of the crime. that's a very important charge for the prosecution. we always want to know why did this -- >> because wasn't the story from the prosecution really about the

motive, about the fact that stormy daniels encounter, getting out there, being made public, could have been detrimental to donald trump's campaign. that was the motive for him -- >> you argue it. but this is sort of a standard charge, it is -- it is not required. you have it, if you have motive as a prosecutor, you're going to give that reason. >> steinglass said in the closing, in the simplest of term s, stormy daniels is the motive. >> it is like merchan is listening to us. we're asking and he's answering. merchan, some jurors took notes, any notes taken are only made from your memory and should not take precedence over the evidence. those jurors who chose not to take notes and rely on their recollections, the jurors cannot substitute the transcript. if there is a discrepancy, you should ask to have the relevant

testimony read back. >> that's the danger, because my notes may say that this was important or i may have totally misinterpreted or misunderstood what the judge has been saying or what the evidence has been versus maybe charles' notes. that's why they cannot supplant or be a substitute for the actual record. the problem is, it is not like they're going to get the entirety of the court proceedings in the jury room. they have to rely upon their own recollection. and that's where the real battle comes in when you're in deliberations. it is whether somebody tries to say that their recollection or their placing of importance on a particular item of evidence is greater or deeper than perhaps what your perception is of that. that's where there is some conflict. but most of the time, when we have spoken to jurors that have come out of the -- by the way, let's be clear, they can speak after the conclusion of this case. they can speak to the public if they choose to do so. but when we have spoken to jurors after the trials that i've done, a lot of them say at the very beginning they select a foreperson, put in this

instance, in new york, that was juror number one, already picked. that's just what happens here. then, they go around and a lot of them do a straw poll at the very beginning of guilt or not. to kind of gauge where people are. and it is actually kind of human nature. like, if we're together and we're going to order something, maybe we'll take a straw poll on the options. it is leaning into common sense, logic, human nature, who gets to navigate that into danny's point a few minutes ago, do the lawyers end up taking larger presences in terms of that? >> i think, and katie's right, that first straw poll in terms of just assessing where everyone is in terms of my conversations with jurors after trials has been pretty consistent. that's where they started and they worked their way around that. the issue with the case like this is when you say guilt, of what. and -- >> so many. >> and correct. there are 34 different counts. even a straw poll like that, someone says let's get room

temperature check, who is saying guilty who is saying not? someone in that room, in the interest of justice, if you will, just to make sure that they're doing the job that they're supposed to be doing, should be asking the question, guilty of what in terms of are we talking about falsifying business records, talking about the intention to conceal another crime, what exactly are you actually talking about? >> remember, on the falsified business records, there are different records. some of them are checks, 11 invoices, 12 vouchers, 11 checks. >> ledgers. >> one of the checks didn't have donald trump's signature, do they look at that differently. so that's why it could get a little bit complicated. >> all 34 counts are a felony. >> yes. and that's another complicating factor too. the aggravation to the factor is complicated. in many ways, there are plenty of options to convict but if they keep it very simple, maybe it will be an easy process. maybe that first straw poll they'll find they're all closer

to unanimity than they expected. it is often said, it only takes one, i think that's somewhat problematic statement because the reality is, if there is only one, there is a high likelihood that one holdout who is either for or against what everybody else is for or against is probably going to change their mind. it is very, very pressure-filled to have 11 people you don't know all telling you that you are wrong. so, look, if you're a defendant, and you know magically there is one holdout, yeah, in theory, it takes one to hang a jury. that's not what you're going for. that's not the optimal situation. if that's where you are, there is a good chance it won't be a hung jury. good chance it will be guilty. >> is catherine, the fact that all 34 counts are a felony, and the jury doesn't have the option to, for example, convict on a lesser crime, like a misdemeanor, is that at all -- >> it is all or nothing. >> even one? >> the one holdout is probably

someone who wasn't truthful, put it that way, that one juror who, oh, my goodness, that's usually what you find. and hopefully that won't be here, that they all were truthful and will give donald trump a fair trial, whatever that outcome is. and you might have people during the first straw poll there are nine checks he signed, can we at least degree on those nine. he knew that, he signed it. you might have that type of conversation. the conversation is about the invoices and the ledgers and the unsigned checks. you might have that conversation. >> right now, judge merchan is telling them what to do when they reach a verdict, guilty or not guilty. he says when the jury has reached a verdict, the entire jury will return to the courtroom. the foreperson will then be asked what the verdict is for each of the charged counts. then the entire jury will be asked if that was their verdict, and they'll be asked individually. please use the form to record your verdict with a check mark in the appropriate place. while you're here in the courthouse deliberating on the case, you'll be kept together,

in the jury room, and may not leave the jury room during deliberations. lunch will be provided. if you have a cell phone, please give it to the court officer. it is important that each juror has an opportunity to hear whatever any other juror has to hear. if for any reason, all 12 of you are not together, please stop deliberating. you must not discuss the case with anyone else. >> merchan says at 23 past the hour, just a minute ago, that concludes my instructions on the law. counsel, please approach and there is a bench meeting. >> so this is it. >> this is it. there is stuff that is now go ing to happen behind the scenes that is how the sausage is made for all of us. the bench meeting, going over whether there is any objections. you can object to the manner in which the jury instructions were read. sounds crazy, but you can. you can say, judge there was an error, by then, this would have been hashed out, but there is also a discussion about the

transmission of the evidence. there is tangible physical evidence in this case, and the jurors get that in the deliberation room. or they may be given a clean ipad or a computer to be able to listen to the audio. because this is stuff entered into evidence, so the lawyers will talk to the judge about conversing with the clerk and how do we get it to the jurors and what form, et cetera, is it a clean disk? it is nuances, but that is the nitty-gritty. that's what we do. >> and there will be discussions, if very hadn't this conversation already, during deliberations, jurors may want to hear readbacks, some parts of testimony, they may want to see pieces of evidence, if it is a piece of evidence, for example, the judge may ask are we going to do it where everyone comes back or allow them to have the evidence in the jury room? depending what the attorneys want, you'll see now, if they're readbacks, someone is confused about the testimony that

occurred at a particular point, the attorneys have to come back and there has to be an agreement of where the readback of testimony is going to start and where it is going to stop to satisfy whatever question that juror has. >> that's up to the judge? >> yes, ideally the attorneys will agree, both attorneys will sort of put together whatever their best proposal is in terms of where we think this satisfied that question. and depending on the question, it can be expansive or narrow. >> vaughn hillyard, right now, merchan is speaking after that bench meeting and he's saying in a moment, you're going to begin the final part of your jury service, deliberations. >> and he says that we have, from the courtroom, our note from our reporter inside the room says trump's sitting at the defense table right now, shaking his head in the vain of i can't believe this is happening. >> a new bench meeting. >> fill us in, vaughn what more can you tell us as we head into

deliberations? >> reporter: right, bouncing off that note from adam reese who has been in the courtroom every day and watching donald trump closely this is a man who i think that history would show, whether it has to do with elections or whether it has to do with indictments, that he is somebody who casts widespread doubt on the findings of not only the outcome of an election, but also the investigations that led to the charges presented against him. and this trial is no different. donald trump is already casting doubt, publicly, about the jurors who are going to be the ones determining his fate. when we have the conversation about these 12 jurors, who were here for the entirety of this trial, heard all of the evidence, all know donald trump had the chance to defend himself, these jurors were picked through a rigorous process that all of us went through here together. that included the opportunity for donald trump's own defense attorneys to challenge for cause

each of the empanelled jurors who are ultimately seated. and when we talk about challenge for cause, we got to go back six weeks, but they had a chance to research past social media statements, ask people about political preferences, whether they attended a political event, if they campaigned. of the 12 seated jurors, only one of them was challenged by donald trump's attorney. judge merchan allowed that individual to ultimately be on this jury, but that means that 11 out of 12 jurors went through this process without being challenged by donald trump's attorneys. so, while the defendant may shake his head, by the entirety of the process, the 12 jurors that have his fates in their hands in the hours ahead are individuals that by and large his own attorneys had no issue with. >> and right now, 11:28 eastern, merchan's words, jurors i'm asking you to step out to begin deliberations. six alternates, please step to

the side. >> and the jurors have now left the courtroom. as of 11:28 a.m. so we're in stand by mode. >> and we have an answer to katie's question or discussion about the evidence. it is very primitive. there is one laptop that will be given to the jury and you have the juror -- the judge asking are there any volunteers who can handle the laptop and two jurors said i can. so they're going to be given a laptop to bring up the evidence. and also in terms of jury notes, in new york, you can be reversed as a judge if you handle jury notes improperly. the juror has to mark it as a -- both sides have to be there, he has to read the note verbatim into the record, he discusses with the attorneys how do you want me to answer this, he doesn't have to listen to them, but he has to get their input and the jury gets called back in, and then once again, the judge has to read it verbatim to make sure this is accurate and that's how it is handled.

so, if it is not handled that way, a conviction can be reversed. the judge can't wing it. you have to read it into the record, you have to make it a court exhibit. >> your thoughts on what we're living through right now. let's step back for a second and think about what it is that all of us together have been a part of, the witnessing. there is now a group of men and women who are assigned to deal with the charges against the former president of the united states of america. the first time that any former president has been charged with criminal. what are we living through? what are these moments? >> i sat here and thought about the notion of -- i can picture it, because i know the courtroom, i know -- i'm visualizing these jurors going into the jury room and deliberating. and i think that there is a degree of poetic irony because

our judicial system sits in many respects as a bedrock to what democracy is, and what the guardrails of democracy are. and here we have someone who has sat literally at the peak of power in our country, who is now on trial, not necessarily for some of the other things he's been accused of, but at the same time, someone who many would regard as having a direct hand in attempting to dismantle democracy. and so you have this space that is dedicated for the preservation of an institution that donald trump, by most accounts, attempted to tear down. and while he's not on trial for that here, the notion of accountability in a space where we are a government of laws, not of men, is critically important in this moment. the gravity of this moment cannot be overstated because what it says and what it is

supposed to say, it encapsulates everything that we say about the strength, the protections, and the guardrails that exist within our democracy. and that's really phenomenal. >> judge merchan is having the alternates stick around. they left the courtroom, but his message to them before leaving that courtroom is you've been with us for a long time, every single one of you has been engaged. you're not going to be excused just yet. we're not done with your jury service. we're also going to ask you to please hand in your cell phones, we'll figure out another way to keep you guys entertained. and then the alternates departed the courtroom as of 11:30. they'll be sticking around because -- >> that's interesting to me. because the defense has to consent to if something happens to a sitting juror that they are replaced with an alternate. typically the defense says you can let the six go home. there is something missing here.

i'm shocked that the defense attorney, particularly these defense attorneys, would consent. what happens if they're sent home, suppose a juror gets sick, that happens, and they said they can't come back, that's called the end of the case. it is a mistrial. >> so the defense would like that to happen. >> thank you for your service, good-bye. >> that doesn't mean he doesn't get retried. >> mistrial. >> it is not caused by the government. >> it strikes me, this is a precaution that the judge is taking here to ensure that this trial sees its proper ending. >> yes, but it is strange for the same reason catherine pointed out, now there is a risk without any alternates that you can get to a mistrial, something that could have been avoided when you keep around those alternates. >> he's keeping them around. >> yes. that is what catherine was pointing out. that would be an unforced error

if you had the mistrial because you had no extra alternates. that makes a lot more sense. >> once the alternates are released, that's it. >> the 12, and you hope if you're a prosecutor, they're in good health and they show up and they deliberate. >> here is another thing too, they knew they were alternates, which is unusual thing here. and other jurisdictions, they are picked, but they don't know they're the alternates. and the reason why is you want them to all be invested and engaged and listening because there is a risk that if you know you're an alternate, maybe checking, what am i making for dinner, it is interesting that they know, but to catherine and danny's point, having them there safeguards against this idea that perhaps something could get derailed along the way. and so, he's telling them every single one of you has been diligent but you're not excused, you will not sit in on the deliberations, but you have to stay here. they're a captive audience now. >> the life of an alternate is

akin to a captive audience. you go through all the work. they have paid all this attention and go sit in a room. i had one where there was one alternate remaining, poor guy had to sit in a room by himself and stare at a wall. it is an interesting part of our system that we ask people to give up their lives and sit through this and on some level they're probably expecting, boy, i get to participate in the outcome but they do not. that's the system. we need them in the bullpen in case of emergency. and emergencies come up. you lose jurors. i thought at the outset this would be a case where you had a high level of juror attrition. during jury selection, there was. >> the jurors have been very committed. >> what is interesting here, this is apparently what's happening, is that the judge has told the jurors they can't start deliberations, first if they're not all in the same room

together, with juror four and six learning how to use the laptop. apparently, merchan stopped midsentence when he said while we wait for jurors four and six, i want to go on the record, and he stopped, i want to make sure he adds that you're all consented to the jury receiving evidence in that laptop. blanche has now consented to that. >> everything about this that the judge is doing is putting things as clearly on the record to preserve any notion of reversible error. these are the things that folks will try and harp on, if there is a conviction to try and appeal and say that something about the instructions or the deliberations was, you know, to call it a term from the defendant, rigged. this is not the case. judge merchan is a seasoned judge, hundreds of trials, if not thousands. he knows the importance of making sure that the record is clear and getting the type of consent and clarity on the

record that is necessary. a lot of times people forget this, lawyers, we know, for example, if it is not in the record, it doesn't count. even pointing at someone, for example, that's why we sort of put the actual words on the record and that's what judge merchan is doing to give it as clear and unequivocal a memorializing if you will of the instructions as possible. >> this issue with the 4 and the 6 of the two jurors, it is about the actual aspect of what is in a computer when you have such detailed and complicated ways of filing, of remembering it and of actually accessing it. >> this laptop moment is really kind of symbolic of what is great about our criminal justice system is that these are really truly people from all walks of life, bringing their common sense and life experience. and just like a sort of mini justice league, when you need somebody to handle the computer, we got the software engineer and the other person who is -- we got people with that particular

level of skill. they didn't ask the english literature major to come over and help with the laptop. it shows when you call upon people for their skill, with the jury, these really are 12 people who come from all walks of life, different skills they bring to the table. some of those skills are literally brought to the table in the sense that they're going to the table with the laptop and learning how to use the laptop. and they'll bring those same th room. >> now that laptop situa completed. and the jurors have been sent to begin their deliberations. so, i want to come back to the question about this moment that we're in, and living through. this is historic, catherine. a former president, current candidate, not just candidate, but the presumptive nominee, for the republican party, for president this year now awaiting his fate in a criminal trial. your thoughts? >> i go back to what happened which i thought was offensive two or three weeks ago, you had

the speaker of the house and a number of senators elected officials, congress people, outside of a courthouse, trashing a judge and the judge's daughter in the name of this presidential candidate and former president. and it sort of keys into what charles said, it is, like, the rule of law and respecting the rule of law, and i hope whatever the verdict is, and i hope there is a verdict, that it will be respected and we won't have -- if it is a conviction, you know, the speaker of the house or the senators trashing the rule of law. >> we're seeing right now, in case you're listening to us on radio, we're seeing some family members of trump, one of his attorneys, not in this case, but one of his attorneys that has been with him for some time, and others just outside as we await, i imagine, just in a matter of seconds the former president of the united states coming out. you know, back to what charles, you were talking about, just the

monumental significance of this, and the fact that we are a country based on the rule of law, and i keep thinking about how unusual in many ways trial by juries are. yes, in places, canada and spain and england, magna carta, to have juries, but not all the time. and not to this degree. and this level. how extraordinary this system is in the united states of america, and that a former president can be up on charges. >> we'll see. and i say that because -- >> he is, though. >> he is. >> he's going through this process. >> he is. and to -- when i say we'll see, what i mean is the design, the design itself is one that is in and of itself nearly flawless in terms of the balance that he

creates and its design to operate in from a system of fairness and objectivity. the design. >> there is donald trump just leaving the courtroom. >> he's going to speak. >> he may speak. if he does, we'll listen. but continue. >> i think he's going to speak right now. >> listening to the charges, from the judge, who is as you know very conflicted, and corrupt, because of the confliction, very, very corrupt, mother teresa could not beat these charges. these charges are rigged. the whole thing is rigged. the whole country is a mess between the borders and fake elections and you have a trial like this, with the judge is so conflicted, he can't breathe, he's got to do his job. >> we heard this before. donald trump continuing to rail against the justice system, katie. >> but this is how democracy works. this is the rule of law. and despite his best efforts to not have it work, it has worked to your point, ana. i would say, and jose knows

this, the courtrooms that i grew up in, i'll say in florida there is a saying that is on all the walls, we who labor here only seek the truth. it doesn't say we who labor here only seek the truth for those who can afford it, we who labor here only seek the truth for certain ones. let's keep it real. in any other situation, you have a criminal defendant sometimes who is just by themselves. he has an entourage of stooges and other lawyers that are there. to some extent, and maybe this dove tails with what charles just said, he's in a cocoon, he's in a protected cocoon. he's gone through the judicial system, he's gone through our rule of law institution, but he's protected right now. he's not getting the full effect of what it is like to be a criminal defendant in our judicial system. i'm keeping it real and being honest. at the same time, he is facing the same consequences and penalties that any other criminal defendant would be facing. and i think that is an important distinction with a difference we have to remember.

there is still justice. and even if the disposition of this is not what you personally want it to be, it is how it was supposed to happen and thank gosh for judge merchan. thank gosh we had a judge and a system that made sure that it was despite what donald trump wants to say, which is a lie, it was not a rigged system. this is exactly how the process goes. >> i do wonder, danny, whether who this defendant is, again, to reiterate, a former president, current candidate to be president, how that factors into the deliberations. it has got to be on the jurors' minds. >> it factors in an intangible way. when you have a famous or infamous defendant, and more so with arguably the most famous or infamous defendant in american history. >> this could influence this country. it is not just a famous or infamous person who is an actor, let's just say, this is a potential future president and

already former president. >> and, by the way, that goes to exhibit a in the case of whether todd blanche's reference to donald trump may be going to prison is accidental or not accidental, because when you really think of the effects of that, just that little line might have jurors thinking, even though there was an objection and correction, a curative instruction, that's going to have jurors thinking about the weight of what happens if you convict not just a former president, but someone who may be president again and very soon. so, yes, that always factors in, in a way that you can't measure, i can't tell you how jurors weigh it, they won't say it in the jury room, i wouldn't expect them to. hey, how do we weigh this differently because it is a famous person, because it is donald trump, because it is a former president. i don't think they say that out loud. but it weighs in all of our subconscious. >> it also has a prejudicial weight in many cases. who the person is, if you as a juror have an opinion about the person separate from an opinion

about what they have been witnessing in the courtroom as far as evidence and facts. >> exactly. notoriety cuts both ways. that's probably never been more true in the case of donald trump, who is the most polarizing figure ever in american history, that everybody -- what other defendant can you walk into a courtroom, and pretty safely say, roughly half the country is a fan, roughly half the country is not a fan, and you have that with donald trump. and, of course, that was a challenge during jury selection. we can't talk enough about how jury selection i predicted could take weeks upon weeks upon weeks and i think others were in agreement, it went relatively quickly. so, there is an ability in this american criminal justice system to find people who are willing to sit on a jury, who may have opinions about somebody, but they're willing to set those opinions aside and sit in judgment. if you can find a jury for donald trump, i think the lesson here is you can find a jury for anybody. >> we just saw donald trump leave, he finished his remarks,

continued to call the trial process rigged, continued to blame president biden, suggesting he was connected to this particular case, which, of course, he wasn't, no evidence of that. this was a state case, not federal charges. let's go to somebody who has been in the courthouse for the duration of this trial, suzanne craig, investigative reporter for "the new york times," who has been covering trump's businesses for years. thanks so much for stepping on out. >> you've been covering this story. with the case now in the hands of the jury, what was your biggest takeaway today? >> well, i was really listening today to the judge's instructions on how they should interpret michael cohen. we have talked so much about michael cohen, and there has been a lot of push and pull about him. he's, of course, we know he's lied under oath, he has lied about -- to banks, he's lied on his taxes, and his credibility

has been a huge issue in this trial, and just in closings yesterday, we heard, you know, he was -- donald trump's lawyers really went after him, called him the gloat, a pun on goat, the greatest liar of all time. and the government said, you know, we didn't go to the witness store and purchase michael cohen, he was brought to us by donald trump. so i was really listening to any instruction on how they should interpret michael cohen and i took some notes and i would like to read from them, because the judge gave pretty specific instructions about michael cohen and his testimony. and the judge said, you know, under the law, michael cohen is an accomplice, that's the word he used, because there is evidence that he participated in a crime based upon conduct involved in the allegations here against the defendant. and the judge then went on to say, 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 to or hopes for the benefit in return for his testimony. therefore, our law provides that a defendant may not be convicted of a crime upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is supported by corroborative evidence, tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. in other words, 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. and it goes on, but that's really the heart of it, they have to find that there is other evidence in this case that supports what michael cohen says. >> sue, when you take a step back and you look at trump's business history, you have covered him for a long time, you

know how, you know, how entrenched he is in this community. how significant is this moment for him? >> i think it is incredibly significant. i mean, just stepping back, he is the first former president to be on criminal trial and it is his hometown. i also covered the civil trial and i thought that really shook him to his core. but this is -- just because it was all about his businesses, and malfeasance that he was accused of. and i always say, you know, the only language donald trump really speaks is money. and that was all about his money. but this is just so much different because it is a criminal trial, and it is in his hometown. this is a political c he is running for president. >> thank you very much. it's so important to hear your perspective and your voice. catherine, i'm wondering -- right now, the jury is in the process.

what happens to donald trump? does he get to go back to fifth avenue and wait there? >> he has to stay. >> where? >> in the building or nearby, as do the prosecutors. because if a verdict happens, you don't want to keep the jury waiting. you want everyone back into the courtroom so you can take the verdict. >> where is he going to be? >> an empty courtroom down the hallway. >> hanging out there. some defendants, not former president of the united states, will go to a restaurant with their team and just stay there. he can't leave. he has to be there in case the verdict comes. >> you have some experience. >> now begins the most agonizing portion. the last person you want to be stuck in a room with is the client. you have done all the work you can. you are not interested in any more questions about --

>> pretty much done. >> or sharing the anxiety with them. you try to get back to your life. you start checking your emails. you open up your laptop. you can't get back to your life, because your mind is on one place. believe me, all of these people, all of these attorneys have put their careers and lives completely on hold. when the judge says, that's it for the day and the jurors go home, the lawyers go back to the office. when you take a lunch break, there's nothing more misnamed than a lunch break for lawyers. it's not lunch and it's not a break. you are working furiously on your yellow notepad and writing out what's next in the afternoon. there are no breaks. it's grueling. this last part is probably the hardest. everything else has been burning calories. now you have to sit there and wait. it's not easy. >> i did want to point something out big picture-wise. what's interesting to me is,

when you saw donald trump very briefly there come out and give his remarks. that wasn't a man who spoke as though he felt good about the case. that was not a man who spoke as though he felt confident about what this outcome would be. granted, from the very outset, he has been priming the public around the narrative that this has been rigged from the start. but when i watched him, the bravado was absent, the humility almost seemed to be weighing him down. it's so obvious, because it's counter to everything we have seen and known about this man for the past eight years. i think that that is such a very telling sort of notion around how he thought things went and what he thinks he is up against. there are a lot of defendants -- danny can tell you. i know for me that they will feel very confident about how things are going. they may not be right, but they

will feel very confident from their perspective. the demeanor we saw from the former president was of a man who feels like -- felt like for me watching it, he knows that there's a high likelihood of a conviction and it's not because of a rigged trial. it's because it did not go well for him. >> he insists this is all politicized. this is for political reasons. if you truly believe that, then i presume that you would be upset that this is even being carried out in the first place. now that all has to be set aside. he is in a very real way just like every other defendant in the history of our country. >> as you and i would say, it's done. now it's time for the jury to really do its job. you know, he said it was a rigged election. he is saying it's a rigged outcome. this is his game. >> his shtick.

>> it's tire and old. it's being tested right now. this is the process. i'm glad you asked about deliberations with the lawyers. there's the reality of what you go through. if you are on the prosecution, you may go back to your office. you are waiting for a phone to ding to let you know a verdict or question is there. it's just the length of time. i'm feeling bullish on this. i think we're getting a verdict quickly. >> let's bring in a former u.s. attorney, state court judge, she's an msnbc legal analyst. carol, jurors just began their deliberations within the last 25 minutes or so. it's a historic moment, as we have been discussing. did anything stick out to you today either during instructions or -- what's top of mind? >> a couple of things did stand out. one was that there were a couple of places in the jury instructions where the judge

pointed the jury to specific pieces of evidence and said, these are pieces of evidence you can consider, for example, in trying to determine whether there were falsified business records. you can look at these bank records. you can look at these invoices. that was a surprise to me. generally, jury instructions don't include references to specific pieces of evidence that the judge seems to be pointing the jury to. those who practice new york law may have some other take on this. but that was a little bit of a surprise. i guess the other thing -- i actually have served on a criminal jury, even though i was a former prosecutor and even though i was a former judge. one thing that i came away from that experience thinking was that juries -- they really do try to follow the law. i think they try to do what they're supposed do. they don't like to return verdicts that they are not emotionally comfortable with.

that's always a driving force in a jury deliberation. the fact the jury instructions are -- in new york don't go back to the jury -- in the jury room as a matter of course, i think, could slow things down here. we will have to go through the process every time they have a question that relates to the jury instructions, which i think they might, especially with two lawyers on the jury, they will have to gather everybody in the courtroom and bring the jury out and have the question asked to the judge. those are my impressions here. i'm impressed this trial has actually gotten from beginning to end and that the jury is actually in deliberations now. >> thank you so much for being with us. i would like to each every one of you, if i could, what do you normally think or consider if the jury has a quick verdict or takes its time? what is a quick verdict? what is -- >> that's the question on

everyone's mind. >> what's the definition of quick? i'm old enough to remember when o.j. simpson was tried and it was a quick verdict and he was found not guilty. typically, it was a quick verdict is guilty. that's it. i actually sort of agree that we could have -- i don't mean within an hour, because that means they didn't deliberate. we could have a verdict by the end of today. they may say -- i know you said 4:30, but we will stay. or tomorrow. this is just real speculation. the jury yesterday consented to working until 8:00 last night meant, can we just get this over with so we can go and deliberate? that's the sense i got. again, that doesn't mean that we want to deliberate and get it over with. it means they were ready to start talking about the case. >> let me meet your speculation with rampant speculation, which is i think there will be a number of notes. i think catherine is likely right. because of the complexities of the case, i wouldn't be surprised if there are a number of notes.

notes add time. get the lawyers together, argue about how to respond. jury questions, yeah. those create a procedural add on in terms of time. if we get a lot of notes and the jury has a lot of questions about legal definitions or causation or things like that, it might take a little longer. i think -- i'm going to take the easy bet, which is probably friday late afternoon because jurors don't want to come back monday. that's the safe bet. i'm not going out on a limb. >> i agree with danny and catherine, quick in a trial like this is complicated because the charges are complicated. we will have a sense of where things are, i think, by the notes we are getting tomorrow, for example. i think that if we get to a point where we are having this conversation a week from tomorrow, next thursday, donald trump should be feeling better about himself. i don't think we will get that far. the quicker this happens, the less likely i think that there's

a chance of a hung jury or mistrial. there's virtually no chance of an acquittal. i feel confident about that. >> i had a look of horror when he said next week. this is not going into next week. people want to ding joshua for spending as much time as he did. he meticulously went through all of it. you know all the details. it may hasten them getting to the details because they have the evidence from the prosecution in their mind from being in that entire closing argument. >> thank each and every one of you, not just for today but for your guidance and expertise and insights throughout this trial. thank you so much. thank you for the privilege of your time. andrea mitchell picks up our coverage next.