so they can work and eat at the same time. they can hash through evidence, they can deliberate together. so quick would be today, with them going out yesterday, and beginning, i would say quick would be today. i also think quick would be tomorrow. i am of the school of thought that they were off for a week, they came back, they were in closings until 8:00 and change on tuesday evening and part of the reason they did that is they were given -- i want to emphasize this, judge merchan gave them a chance to stay. he didn't force them to stay. this showed a willingness to get this done, to start deliberating. i don't think they want to come back after the weekend. remember during that week they were off, they were back to their lives. they were back to their jobs. they went back to the normalcy of their worlds. this is not a normal place to be. so, i don't think they're going to be out for very long. >> we got to leave it there for this hour. thank you, everyone. that does it for us. a busy hour. i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. jose diaz-balart picks up our coverage right now.

good morning. 11:00 a.m. eastern, 8:00 a.m. pacific. i'm jose diaz-balart. we are following the very latest in the new york hush money trial of former president donald trump. now, jurors are still in the courtroom, they're relistening to some of the testimony from former tabloid mogul david pecker and trump's former lawyer and fixer michael cohen. with us now to talk more about this as we continue focusing on what exactly is happening in that courtroom, nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard. outside the courthouse, in lower manhattan. defense attorney misty maris, temidayo aganga williams and jeremy saland, a criminal defense attorney, a former prosecutor in manhattan. so, vaughn, what is the latest, they are now focusing in on the

third of four questions that the jury wanted to hear again. >> reporter: exactly. these were very four specific passages they wanted read back to them. they made this request yesterday afternoon before leaving for the day. there is deliberation between the prosecution and defense over exactly what pages of transcript related to michael cohen and david pecker's testimony, specifically around the events of 2015 and 2016, which prosecutors told the jurors was the beginning of this conspiracy to hatch the catch and kill scheme between donald trump, michael cohen, and the "national enquirer." and they're currently reading back that third passage, which is about that august 2015 trump tower meeting and this is david pecker's testimony, specifically. and now why is this important? this goes to the heart of the new york election law that the prosecution alleged that donald trump violated. now, of course, the top line,

the actual charges over the falsification of business records to further another crime, and that other crime that is being alleged that donald trump violated was specifically new york election law to promote through unlawful means the promotion of his own campaign. and so, clearly, the jury through the first three and a half hours of their deliberation yesterday, got to a point where they were interested in the potential violation of the election law as that other crime. and that is where you see them asking this morning not only the reading back of jury instructions as it related to what they are able to infer from the facts that were presented by them, but also specifically about the testimony that, you know, you could say david pecker largely corroborated of michael cohen about the facts of this specifics of these beginning of this alleged conspiracy that donald trump was a part of, and the extent to which trump was familiar or causing and directing this conspiracy to take place before the 2016

election. >> and, of course, we're going to keep very close watch on what exactly is being read back. it is still ongoing. and it is -- as vaughn says, it is focusing on that meeting. and, when you see that these were the questions that the jury had, they deliberated just a little under four and a half hours yesterday, they had these four questions, including jury instructions. but let's first talk about this, this meeting and why the importance of what pecker was -- had to say about that. >> this really popped out to me. the fact that the jury was starting with this meeting and in august of 2015. this is when pecker, michael cohen, and donald trump meet. and from the prosecution's perspective, this is where they all agree to suppress these negative stories, and, by the way, promote negative stories about trump's political opponents. they decide to do this at this meeting. and from the prosecution's perspective, they said in their closing, look at all of the evidence through the prism of

this meeting. this is where they have an agreement, this is where they become accomplices and every single other piece of evidence should be looked at through this view. and that's how you see this accomplice liability theory that the prosecution is presenting. another note, i also think it has two other really relevant purposes. it is very logical to start here, right? this is the beginning for the jurors to start here. >> chronologically, this is the beginning. >> correct. chronologically this is the beginning. also, let's talk about pecker's testimony, also asking for cohen's testimony about this very meeting. so, that leads me to believe that the jurors are looking to maybe compare the two, see where it deviates or see where it is consistent. >> it is interesting, right now the way that they're doing it in the courtroom is that there is a court employee on the witness stand, that is reading back part of the testimony. almost like an actor, right, would in reading lines and the other person is also reading different lines of this

testimony. but, temidayo, there is so much about accomplices and conspiracies that according to the prosecution were born in this meeting. yet there is no conspiracy charge. >> yeah, there is not a conspiracy charge, but accomplice liability is very important here. and what that means is that donald trump can effectively enter an agreement here to have a crime be done, and individuals he's agreed with can go and engage in other activities that he's also going to be responsible for as an individual. even though it is not a charged conspiracy, it doesn't get him off the hook because michael cohen effectuates what they agreed to here. that's why this is so important. they're agreeing, if you believe the prosecution's case, to impact the election here. they're going to suppress stories, negative stories, they're going to push out positive stories, and from then on, for those years into the future, michael cohen, david pecker and others are engaged in activities in furtherance of

that activity. and that goes all the way to the business records as well. what michael cohen is also indicating these are legal fees, he again is looking back to 2015 and understanding what is happening and works its way forward to how he's effectuating donald trump's intentions. >> and so, jeremy, what does it tell you that these were the first series of questions that the jury asked? was it because this was early testimony, early on and they want to refresh their memory? what does it tell you? >> first of all, i think if any of us had a dollar for any of us could read the tea leaves, we would be rich. i say this is favorable to the prosecution. it is favorable for multiple reasons. the defense tried to make this about michael cohen. michael cohen is a bad guy. you can't trust michael cohen. michael cohen, michael cohen. the prosecution bolstered him up with people, more specifically like david pecker, who is the readback we're getting? not michael cohen read back, it is really david pecker readback. we're not concentrating as a

jury on michael cohen. we're concentrating on there is a phone call with david pecker and there is a reference to buying mcdougal's story and i don't do that, go deal with michael cohen. there is a meeting that is used, it was birthed at that point in time about this conspiracy that doesn't have to be proven, but about this conspiracy to promote the fraudulent election. so, it is all favorable. that said, a lot can happen between now and when the foreman gives out the verdict. it is all favorable in my view for the prosecution. >> and so, misty, let's bore into what it is that the jury wanted to hear and what it is that was said. so, one piece of testimony they're hearing this morning is what pecker said about the trump tower meeting. here's some of what he said on the stand. quote, there was a discussion about -- that i was going to be eyes and ears of the campaign, there was a discussion that i would be notifying michael cohen of any women that were in the process of or going to be

selling stories and i would notify cohen that they would be available and that they would either have to buy them or take them off the market or kill them in some manner. so, again, very specific issues. >> very specific issues. keep in mind, let's look at the charges. we have falsification of business records for the purpose to cover up another crime. >> 34 times. >> correct. and here's the predicate crime. 17-152 new york election law, it is a misdemeanor to conspire, to prevent or promote an election through unlawful means. so, here, what we're seeing, the testimony that is being read back, this relates to that idea of the conspiracy. they're agreeing to suppress these stories. and this is where the prosecution, where there might have been some areas where donald trump is not so close to the transaction. let's think about it. the invoices, michael cohen sends, he testified he generated those himself. donald trump does not sign all the checks. so there is areas where donald trump isn't necessarily very close to the transaction, but if you develop this conspiracy

theory, and they're all acting in concert, every single act in furtherance of that conspiracy can be impugned upon donald trump, which is what the prosecution is looking to do. >> interesting, because right now they're asking this is what is being read back to them, part of the redirect of david pecker by steinglass and specifically the transcript portion about catch and kill and about pecker's understanding of his role in all of this. and that he wanted nothing to do with the stormy daniels deal. catch and kill is something that we heard a lot about, not illegal, but in this particular case, if that meeting had as a purpose to create a plan to, in a way, do anything and everything so that these bad stories would not come out, coincidentally when there is an election coming up. >> if you're the prosecutors,

not a coincidence. the catch and kill may not be illegal, but what they're doing here is they're doing it for an unlawful purpose and that -- they're trying to impact an election for an unlawful purpose. i agree fully with reading the tea leaves is difficult. when i would wait and read a jury note as a prosecutor, if i could make money looking into the future, you would try everything you can, but i'm feeling pretty bullish again if i'm the prosecution here because they're going to david pecker and i've always thought david pecker was such a strong witness to begin on. he came in there, he had no credibility issues, he still thought donald trump was a mentor and someone he still liked and looked favorably and he came in and presented this whole narrative arc that we expect michael cohen to do later in the trial, but he did that as the first witness and really went unchallenged. for them to be going to his testimony, that sounds like they're doing exactly what the prosecution wants, which is corroboration. that they have michael cohen's

story and they're saying we want to go back in, look through other testimony and check off where we have corroboration and david pecker is a strong witness for that point. >> i feel like -- >> the bobble head, i'm agreeing. you just said it perfectly. i don't need to say it. i'm here, so i will, but absolutely it is about the corroboration and to my point before, if it was about michael cohen, they would have wanted more about michael cohen and what they want about michael cohen in terms of readback is directly related to pecker's testimony and he sets the stage, gets a conspiracy in motion, he shares that common goal of understanding that while donald trump may not have signed everything or donald trump may not have created the invoice, it was a common scheme and plan, that common goal that they all shared together and they did different pieces to make this happen for this catch and kill, that was not illegal, that's fine, but governor cuomo did it -- i apologize, governor schwarzenegger did it a long time ago. >> ndas aren't illegal. >> 100%. it is a mechanism and how they did it and the manner that they --

>> here's the question. again, tea leaf reading, i'm the worst, i don't even know what a tea leaf looks like. but the fact that the jury kind of got together as a group for the first time yesterday, right? they were able to sit and assume their responsibilities, for about four hours and 20 minutes. does that tell you anything, that this is what could be the first four questions of a whole slew of questions if they're looking at this chronologically that would be, oh, that's why they're asking about pecker, he was the first witness. is it possible that they're just breaking this down, brick by brick, something you kind of alluded to this week, a lot of this is brick by brick to build a wall, is this possibly just first phase, let's ask the questions, and then go forward, chronologically down the case. >> i drink coffee, not tea, so tea leaves.

but i do think that that's also a possibility. there is a lot of different reasons why the jurors could start here. one could be as you said, pecker's testimony was at the beginning of the trial, maybe they didn't remember it. there was a lot in the closing arguments by the prosecution, you got to look back to pecker's testimony because it corroborates michael cohen. it could be because there is somebody in there who says i don't believe a word michael cohen said, and there could be other jurors who said it was corroborated by pecker, let's look at pecker's testimony. there is a whole slew of reasons why this could be happening. i think the meeting itself, that's the first step chronologically and it really speaks to that idea of conspiracy. but we could absolutely hear more questions, because keep in mind, we have documents, you know, 34 different business records that serve as the basis to this case. and this meeting and the testimony we're hearing about, this really relates to that predicate crime, that election law conspiracy more so than the falsification of the records themselves.

>> you know, i'm going to keep on going back and cash in a dollar on one of my tea leaf comments. i think when you consider what the reading back in terms of the testimony and you couple that with the readback of the jury instruction for the elements of falsifying business records, which is charge number one, the same thing as charge two, ten and 34, to me, if i'm guessing a little bit, they now are considering the elements of the crime pretty early. so they're moving through the facts, if you will, the evidence and getting to the elements -- >> they asked specific questions. >> so, again, it seems favorable to the prosecution because if you corroborate and we have this evidence and this testimony here now and we're looking at the actual charges, that's a quick move. that's a quick move. i wouldn't be getting to the charges until i was satisfied, for all likelihood, with what the evidence was or was not. >> they're going into the final -- the fourth question that the jury asked to be read back, and it is the direct examination of michael cohen.

this is about cohen's side of the conversation with pecker about negative stories pecker may come upon and there is a brief now pause as the court employees look for the right transcript of the pages. that's like looking at it as the actors are looking at -- trying out for a part and reading from the scripts, which it is. so, the court employee that is on the stand is actually looking through, like, 2,000 pages -- >> usually just one person, the stenographer, not a bunch of actors. >> there is this pause as this person looks through more than a thousand pages. and the readback is over. judge merchan is back to his mic. and he just says right now, that completes the readback. have we responded to your notes? that's what the judge is asking the jury. okay. please let me know if you would like to have headphones or speakers and that's about whether they want to have each headphones to plug into the laptop with all of the

information that they have at the jury room or do they want a speaker so more than one person can hear it. apparently they want both things. they want speakers, and they want headphones, the judge, of course, saying we will provide that to you and is now telling the jury members they can step out. i will excuse you now to continue your deliberations. you can step out. misty, all of these questions were answered, as was the jury's request to get the instructions. actually part of the instructions read back to them. >> right. this is actually a little inside baseball. the reason the judge puts this on the record, says have your questions been answered, is that could actually be an error on appeal. something that could overturn the case. >> what do you mean? >> if the jury were to ask questions or ask to hear testimony or to ask to review a piece of evidence and the judge for whatever reason declines to provide it to the jury, it is a potential appellate error. so, after the jury asks the

questions, the judge presents the readbacks of the testimony, the judge reads the jury instructions again, he asks the jury were your questions -- did we respond to your questions, the jury says, yes. and that's something that is an appellate issue and the reason why you see the judge do that in the courtroom. >> so interesting. so, talk to us about the jury requesting a readback of part of the judge's instructions. they lasted for, what, 90 minutes, the judge's instructions. what are the questions and then -- one of questions i have, is why don't they have the instructions printed in the jury room? >> well, one, i think under new york law, the defense has the consent to getting those sent back and that hasn't happened here. i think jeremy is right. what they're doing is what is at the core of the jury's function. the judge gives the law, the jury interprets the facts and applies the law to those facts. so i think what they're doing here, to me, is progressing at a

pretty quick clip. if i'm reading the tea leaves like we're all doing here, they're moving quickly here. what they are asking is we are now bringing the facts to reconsider that really matter. the reason they're asking for the pecker testimony and the cohen corroboration here is that that's what matters to them. they didn't walk in and immediately say, i forgot what the case is about, i need to understand the 2015 meeting, they spoke for hours and hours and deliberated. i'm sure at that point, they likely have a sense of where everyone stands, who is on what side and what matters. now they have gone to corroboration. asking for a readback about the law, that to me says they're marrying the two. they're thinking about, all right, we have a sense of what happened here, and the question is has the prosecution proven this beyond a reasonable doubt and to understand that, we want to see what does the jury instructions say about what the law is. >> and one of those instructions was about what reasonable doubt is. >> again, i think that's positive for the prosecution. though there is times when i see

it go the other way. and i can't stress it enough, having tried many cases like all of you guys have, you never know what is going to happen until that verdict is read. when you're getting to that point, it could very well be that there is one or two people saying, no, no, no, this is what reasonable doubt is. stop creating some burden and some standard that doesn't exist. alternatively it could be you're giving too much credit, you got to raise it, can't just be willy-nilly. these are all favorable. it is all favorable to the prosecution. >> and as you see the deliberations have begun. we have this very handy clock there on the bottom right of your screen. see that? how many hours and how many minutes the jury has been deliberating. very quickly, misty, when one of those -- the thing of what exactly is a way to understand what, you know, reasonable doubt is or not, the analogy of rain, you know, is really an interesting one because it kind of helps you conceptualize something much more clearly. >> it is something that is used in jury instructions in new york

and in other jurisdictions that if you go to sleep, and you wake up in the morning and you see the ground is wet, and you see people in galoshes and raincoats with umbrellas, you can draw a conclusion that it rained last night. even though you didn't see the rain. so jurors are allowed to use common sense. you don't need your common sense at the door and all of your life experiences. jurors are allowed to draw conclusions based on the evidence that was presented. and that is all part of understanding what the legal standards are, reasonable doubt, and it can be an abstract concept and mean something different to everyone. it is not no doubt, that's always in the instructions. but it doesn't mean that you have alleviated every doubt under the sun, but it does -- it is a very, very high standard in the criminal law and it has to be based on actual evidence, not speculation. >> no doubt, more than just 1980s band. thank you, all. thanks so much. if you would stick around with

us. up next, reaching a verdict, it may not be as easy as declaring guilty or not guilty across all 34 counts. we'll talk about the options the jury has for a verdict. plus, if trump is convicted of a felony, can he vote in november? you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. vr you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. every day, more dog people, and more vets are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food. they're quitting the kibble. and kicking the cans. and feeding their dogs dog food that's actually well, food.

developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food. get 50% off your first box at thefarmersdog.com/realfood when you put in the effort, but it starts to frizz... you skipped a step. tresemmé silk serum. use before styling for three days of weightlessly smooth hair that frizz can't beat. new tresemmé keratin smooth collection. we're still going for that nice catch. we're still going for that perfect pizza. and with higher stroke risk from afib not caused by a heart valve problem,... ...we're going for a better treatment than warfarin. eliquis. eliquis reduces stroke risk. and has less major bleeding. over 97% of eliquis patients did not experience a stroke. don't stop taking eliquis without talking to your doctor as this may increase your risk of stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding.

while taking, you may bruise more easily... ...or take longer for bleeding to stop. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. it may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor about eliquis. today, at america's beverage companies,... ...our bottles might still look the same... ...but they can be remade in a whole new way. thanks to you... we're getting bottles back... and we've developed a way to make new ones from 100% recycled plastic. new bottles - made using no new plastic. you'll be seeing more of these bottles in more places. and when we get more of them back... ...we can use less new plastic. see how our bottles are made to be remade. (aaron) i own a lot of businesses... ...we can use so i wear a lot of hats. my restaurants, my tattoo shop... and i also have a non-profit. but no matter what business i'm in... my network and my tech need to keep up. thank you verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast

and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (waitress) all with the security features we need. (aaron) because my businesses are my life. man, the fish tacos are blowing up! so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. let's make it happen! (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on.

26 past the hour. the jury is back to deliberating in donald trump's hush money trial. the jurors are now tasked with

coming to a verdict on whether trump falsified business records related to a hush money payment to adult film actress stormy daniels. i want to bring in msnbc legal correspondent katie phang, who is also the host of "the katie phang show" here on msnbc. great seeing you. this charge is typically a misdemeanor. what has been elevated to a felony. tell us how that shapes the jury's objectives. >> yeah, so, jose, let's refresh everybody's recollection. this is your 12 jurors. you got seven men and five women. but what they're really focusing on, what is the crime. so the underlying misdemeanor is the falsification of business records. and in order to make it a felony, there had to have been the intent to commit or conceal another crime. so, a lot of people are asking, what do you mean, katie what is that other crime? in new york, and according to the prosecution, the other crime that trump was going to commit was a violation of new york election law. and basically it is when you

promote or prevent the election of a person to a public office by using unlawful means. but then people say, well, what unlawful means? the jury instructions make it clear that the unlawful means do not have to be agreed upon by all 12 of the jurors. and so, the jurors are listening and have heard to the evidence that there was a violation of a federal election campaign act. there was also a violation of the creation of false business records. violation of tax laws, and why this is so good for the prosecution, jose, is that because there does not have to be all 12 jurors in agreement, as to what the unlawful means was, they just have to agree that there was the falsification of business records with the intent to promote or prevent the election of a public official through unlawful means. you have what i call a buffet of criminality. they can choose from any of these. but they don't have to specify on the verdict form what they decided was the case. so, ultimately what you end up having is the following flow chart, when it comes to the

legal analysis that is happening by them, even though they're not lawyers, two of the jurors are. there is a crime, that's to commit another crime, that eventually ends up being committed through unlawful means. and so, hopefully, these jurors understand and, listen, that readback of the jury instructions from pages six through 35, this was a reread of what we all see on the screen, that's what the jurors just heard. >> explain that. and how unusual or usual is that salad bar thing in a court case? and what does it tell you about what the jury requesting those six through 35 pages be read back to them, what does it tell you? >> that's a great question, jose. normally, and your amazing panel agrees because they dealt with these types of cases you have to have a unanimous verdict by the jurors when it comes to guilt or innocence. that still exists. i want to be very clear. the prosecution still carries the burden of proof beyond a

reasonable doubt that the elements of falsification of a business record in the first degree as a class e felony has been reached. there is no burden shifting that happened here, jose. the luxury, if i may use that word, that the prosecution has is deciding that once we have established that the business records were falsified at trump organization, and once we have established that there was an intent by trump to be able to commit or conceal the other crimes, and there is an agreement that there was the other crime of a violation of the new york election law, then, again, the luxury that the jury has is they don't have to have a unanimous agreement on what those unlawful means were, they just have to admit among each other that something unlawful occurred to get trump across that proverbial finish line. >> thank you. thank you for explaining things as clearly as you always do. appreciate that. back with us, misty maris, temidayo ganga williams.

your thoughts on this and what you see from the four questions that the jury wanted reread to them, and then those six to 35 pages on the instructions. >> there is so much misunderstanding out there and so much confusion. >> it is complicated. >> it is complicated and also simple. there are a lot of people saying, the jury does not need to be unanimous, they do. there is a difference between an element of crime, and a means of a crime. i'll give you an example. let's say somebody is being tried for murder. the jurors have to find the elements of murder are met, but the jurors could disagree was it a bat or was it a club or was it a knife, maybe it wasn't seen, that is a means, that is not an element. the jurors could differ about a detail, about how the crime was committed. that's all that's happening here. the jury has to be unanimous on the two core parts of it, the falsification of the business records, and the concealment of this other crime. what the means are what these other things are, it could be a

tax crime, it could be an election crime, it could be the filing of false business records, they could disagree about that, but the elements everyone has to be unanimous on. this case, as it is for every other case. there is a lot of misunderstanding out there that i think is being stoked by people on purpose to try to make it look like a corrupt process, but there is nothing corrupt about it. it is really just a very standard part of a criminal case. >> and it is, however, unusual, and different in the fact that, for example, 34 counts normally would be misdemeanors. but they have been bumped up to felonies. all 34 of them. >> well, you could question why that was done this way. and obviously -- >> it is unusual. >> it is absolutely unusual. but falsifying business records as a felony is often brought. that's not an unusual thing. it is not often brought on its own in this way against a first time offender and bumped up in

this regard with an expired statute of limitations. there is a case of first impression and in a number of ways. and obviously it is in a sort of category by itself. but that all being said, the core part of the case itself is pretty standard. >> so, misty, what would or could a mixed verdict look like? >> a mixed verdict, there is a lot of different options here, because obviously an acquittal, everybody agrees. a conviction, everybody agrees. a mixed verdict could be that the jurors find him guilty on some of the counts. we have 34 different counts of falsification of business records. >> all of them felonies. >> all of them felonies. they could say, you know what, michael cohen generated those invoices, i don't think donald trump had anything do with that, but he did sign the checks, so we're going to find him guilty on the checks, but not the others. and the others, that could be an acquittal or it could be a hung jury. so, there is a lot of different ways that this could come out if there were to be a mixed

verdict. >> temidayo, there is nothing that they could say it is a misdemeanor, not a felony. >> the misdemeanors are out. that's why they're there. to the extent they can't decide it, they have a hung jury, what the judge is going to do is an alan charge, which means he's going to send them back, while telling them that there is not a better jury out there that can decide, that they are equipped, they spent weeks on this, they have the facts, the tools, the ability to make a decision here and they should go back and try. i bet here with this kind of case, he's probably going to do that multiple times, which in my experience, all of our experience, that does work. jurors come back and say they can't decide, sent back to dig deeper, to work out the differences and they do it many, many times, come out with a unanimous decision. >> and that's been your experience. it hasn't been all your experience, that that actually happens and it works? >> it can. sometimes you have people on the fence. sometimes you have people that

aren't necessarily as staunch in their position of i'm going to convict or acquit, whichever way it is going to go. they're on the fence, they go back in, they're told to listen reasonably, not to put everything they think aside or go against what they believe about reasonable doubt, but listen to the arguments of the majority, and see with reasonable perspective and see if that makes a difference. sometimes it works. sometimes you have people who have dug their heels in and made a decision and they're not going to change. >> duncan, is that something that in the jury room when they first arrive, the four hours and 20 minutes that they were together yesterday, is that something that is normally early on determined or found out by the jury? in other words, you know, there is somebody that comes in and says, this person is guilty, i'm not even changing my mind or this person is not guilty, i'm not going to change my mind? is that normally how juries act and react when they first get together? >> i mean, every jury is different and so i expect that the first thing that happened

was they got back there, these are 12 people who spent a lot of time together, but really not talked about the facts of the case at all. they have been stuck there listening to testimony to the extent that they have been together. they have been talking about things, they have been instructed not to talk about the case. they're talking about the yankees and the weather and all these things, first time they're back there, i expected the first thing they did probably was go around the table and get each other's position. and so, maybe there was one person or two people who were different from the other, and i think that there is -- this thing about the alan charge is not going to come for a while. >> really? >> the judge wants to give them time to deliberate but at some point if this goes on too long and the jury comes back to them and sends a note to the judge and says, we cannot reach a verdict, we're hopelessly deadlocked. that's the point where you might see the judge talk to them, because it is such an extraordinary waste of judicial resources to have to try this case again if that's what happens, if that's what the d.a.'s office decides to do, the

amount of time and effort that it has taken to try this case is extraordinary. the judge is going to make it as difficult as possible for the jury just to decide, all right, well, today is friday, we're done, we're not doing this, he's going to make them come back, he's not going to release them. he's going to say go back there and hammer it out. at some point, that may become hopeless and the judge may give up too. >> by the judge, that's decided. he could say go back, go back, go back, an infinite number of times before he decides, all right, you guys aren't going to get this? >> there comes a point of common decency to let them go. i don't know it has been tested how long a judge has the authority to keep somebody -- a group of 12 people locked up hopelessly deadlocked. but he does a really broad discretion to send them back to the jury room and say, this is very important, i'm not releasing you that easily, go back and figure it out. >> there is no written limit in new york law, to your point. no written limit, but at some point, what you don't want to happen is that if you send the

jurors back so many times, and say, you have to make a decision, you have to be unanimous, that goes too far. and that's why the alan charge is very specific wording relating to the jurors have to go back and continue to confer, but by no means am i telling you, you have to reach a verdict, that could potentially be an appellate issue. that's really where the line is, but the judge does have a great deal of discretion about when that point is reached. >> so temidayo, now four hours and 41 minutes into this, what does four hours and 41 minutes with four questions having been asked tell you? >> well, one, it is not that long. i know we are counting by the second, waiting for a verdict, but it is not that long. i think what i'm seeing here is you have a jury that has been very attentive, a jury that is committed. i think over the last four or five weeks, i don't know we had a single juror be late, that they have been -- you haven't

lost a single juror. sometimes you have trials four days long and the jurors don't make it four days, they can't go on, they have to have surgery tomorrow. this jury, to me, shows that they're incredibly committed, and if i were a betting man, i think we have a verdict this week because this jury is -- with this level of attention, i don't know you're going to have -- >> this week? >> if i really -- if i really want to be betting on live television, maybe i'll say by end of day today even, i think it is possible. because, and, again, these are not -- i want to put this in a bracket, we don't have a way to know this, right? we don't know what's going back then. you talk to juries after trials, sometimes the things you swore, like jury number nine, that guy, oh, he gets me. or this juror hates me. this juror. you find out that, no, the person you never saw would be your holdout is the one who had

an issue or sometimes you have a hung jury and they come back and explain on why they voted on certain counts and not others and it makes zero sense. you're thinking, no, everything about the facts, it had to be one or the other, and they go, oh, no, like, the first three counts, we understood those. on these two, we couldn't agree. that's their job. that's their province. it is not our job to question them. >> what a fascinating process, right? >> it is amazing. not only in this case where you have the fate of and liberty of a president of the united states being judged by 12 ordinary people, right, a salesman, a physical therapist, and engineer and lawyers. but in every case, you know, i know the world is paying attention for the first time to this specific case, to this courthouse, to the rules in new york, and there has been commentary on the right and left about what the rules are, and everyone is paying attention to it. it is extraordinary in every case. because 12 ordinary people get to the judge the fate of a person. and come together and people

with no experience in criminal justice, who really are there to judge the facfacts, they're not there to understand the law, they're there to say here's what happened. it is an extraordinary moment. it is an extraordinary moment in history, and a great sort of testament to our democracy and what is happening in the courthouse here and all over the country, every day of the woo week. >> i'm still in awe of the system. for a healthy democracy, but also the way that this country values individual people that aren't experts and that aren't judges and lawyers and trial by jury of your peers, such a -- i know it exists in other countries, but not to this level and to just sit back and to think, you know, these are 12 people who don't know each other, and aren't part of the process of the rule of law, and yet, they are in very, very real

ways the definition of the rule of law. >> absolutely, they're the arbiters of the facts, the ones that weigh the credibility of the witnesses and make the determination and our system in this democracy and preservation of constitutional rights, you don't have one person deciding your fate, you have a group of 12 and it is an amazing thing. >> misty, temidayo, duncan, thank you so very much. up next, 48 states have some kind of voting restrictions for americans with felony convictions. so if trump is convicted in new york, will he be able to vote for himself in november? you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. b? you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. a year after a heart attack, mike's feeling like himself again. but even though time has passed, his risk of a second attack hasn't. mike is still living in the red. with a very high risk of another heart attack or stroke. he doesn't know with his risk factors his ldl-c (bad cholesterol) is still too high -

the recommended level is below 55. are you living in the red? get in the know. learn how to get a free ldl-c test at attackheartdisease.com. anthony: this making you uncomfortable? good. when you've got type 2 diabetes like me, you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack or worse death. even when meeting your a1c goal. discomfort can help you act. i'm not trying to scare you. i'm empowering you... to get real with your health care provider. talk to them about lowering your risk of stroke, heart attack or death. so rich. so indulgent. it's new olay body wash. silky indulgent moisture. bye bye, dry skin. hello glow in just 14 days. indulge. with olay body wash.

when dry eye symptoms keep... coming... back... inflammation might be to blame. over-the-counter eye drops can provide temporary relief. xiidra can provide lasting relief. it targets inflammation that can cause dry eye disease. xiidra? no-o-o! xiidra treats the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. don't use if allergic to xiidra. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied, and unusual taste sensation. why wait? ask your doctor about a 90-day prescription and pay as little as $0. xiidra. (grunt)

okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪♪) ( ♪ ♪ ) start your day with nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand. [introspective music] recipes. recipes that are more than their ingredients. ♪ [smoke alarm] recipes written by hand and lost to time... can now be analyzed and restored

using the power of dell ai. preserving memories and helping to write new ones. ♪ this is terry's look of total relaxation. and this is his john deere x350 lawn tractor. it does more than just cut grass. ♪♪ it delivers peace of mind, all year round. ♪♪ you just have to get in the seat. (♪♪ ) why did i keep missing out on this? before you were preventing migraine with qulipta? do you remember the pain, the worry, the canceled plans? and look at me now. you'll never truly forget migraine but qulipta reduces attacks making zero-migraine days possible. it's the only pill of its kind that blocks cgrp and is approved to prevent migraine of any frequency. to help give you that forget you get migraine feeling. don't take if allergic to qulipta. most common side effects are nausea, constipation and sleepiness. learn how abbvie could help you save. qulipta, the forget-you-get migraine medicine. an alternative to pills, voltaren is a clinically proven

arthritis pain relief gel, which penetrates deep to target the source of pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine directly at the source. voltaren, the joy of movement. 46 past the hour. happening right now, juries are deliberating the fate of former president trump in the new york hush money case. but with november's election looming, a felony conviction could impact trump in a whole slew of ways, including whether he can actually even vote for himself. nbc news senior reporter jane tim looked into that. trump's residency is in florida now. if he's convicted, could he vote for himself there? >> good morning, jose. it really comes down to whether or not he goes to prison for a potential conviction. florida has pretty complex and strict rules about felony disenfranchisement but they defer to out of state

convictions to the laws in that state. in new york, if you're in prison in an election, you cannot vote. once you get out, if you're on parole or paying fines, you can vote here in new york. so, florida would follow that same model for a conviction in new york, for a florida voter. so, for trump, it matters if he goes to prison. of course, this is a lower level felony and he's a first time offender, the chances of him going to prison have been ranked somewhat low and also, remember, any conviction he could get out of this jury would, of course, be appealed. that would delay things. and if you haven't gone to prison, you can still vote. there are a couple of scenarios where he could be in prison and then apply for clemency in florida with the state's governor, governor ron desantis, he oversees that process and has enormous discretion, but it would be particularly specific and unique scenario if that were to happen. >> so, jane, it is just the physical act of being in prison that determines that aspect,

right? it is not that you are convicted and may be going to prison or convicted, went to prison and are on release. it is the physical act of being in prison? >> yeah, new york rewrote their law. it is very simple. if you're in prison for a felony conviction, you can't vote. basically anything else, you can vote. if you get convicted but never go to prison, you never lose your voting rights in new york. >> thank you very much. we appreciate that clarification. joining us now, susan del percio, republican strategist, basil smikle, director of the public policy program at the roosevelt house institute of hunter college, both msnbc political analysts. thank you, both, for being with us. susan, from a political perspective, it seems that so far very little has affected donald trump's standing within his diehard supporters. is this something either he gets convicted or not that could have an impact on it? >> i don't think so.

at the end of the day, jose, i know it sounds shocking, oh, my gosh, former president convicted of a felony. >> first time ever. >> first time. and it all happens, but i think it is baked in. the reason i think that is we already dealt with the allegations in 2020, now you have the added title, but the people who wouldn't vote for trump weren't voting for him anyway. one thing, i was spot wrong, like, just dead wrong on what i thought would happen during this trial, which was i -- >> what do you mean? >> what i'm dead wrong on was i thought trump's temperament, he wouldn't be able to control himself, i really thought he was going to blow a gasket at some point during this trial. and that would hurt him with voters, the way he's conducted himself, but, frankly, he's shown the discipline that was shocking to a lot of people. >> merchan did >> the judge fine him $9,000 and if you continue, you may go to -- >> we know what donald trump is like. he knew it was all on the line. he took it very seriously.

>> how do you see it? is there nothing -- he famously said he could shoot somebody on 5th avenue and nothing would change. >> let me do a quick ten seconds. we talked whether donald trump can vote if he is convicted. i want to send a shoutout to being able retain or get back voting rights. in florida, a couple of years ago, 1.2 million voters got their rights back, which was something that democrats have been pushing for a long time. people formerly incarcerated able to vote. >> thanks to the -- >> i have to say democrats have been pushing this issue across the country for years because it affected black and brown people so significantly. to your specific question, i think that there's a moment where if he is convicted, even on a few charges, there's a

moment of pause. it may be that those voters go back and say, if i was going to vote for him the first time, i will continue to vote for him. for the voters where there's a moment of pause, it does present an opportunity for democrats to say, do you want to keep dealing with this for the next four years if you re-elect him? if you don't, if you have some moment of clarity where you say, you know, maybe there's another -- there's an alternative, we are the party of bringing things back to normal. >> it's almost a mantra repeated over and over again by some in the maga world is the politicalization of the justice system. that's something that -- could that have an impact more than it already has? >> i don't know if it's more than that. i know it has become more dangerous for our country. it is cracking our pillars of

democracy. it started in 2016 when he said the press is the enemy of the people. what he has done with the judicial system, meaning donald trump, has really weaponized it and really put itself on its head. that's what i'm more concerned about. >> the issue of questioning elections. it didn't start in 2016. but it certainly was an important issue that was mentioned, sometimes by both sides or questioning the integrity or the legality of elections. i'm wondering, what do you think the biden campaign should be doing, saying or not saying about this? this is a huge issue. >> it's a huge issue. i will add another layer to it. what i think has been this trend, even since i voted in my first presidential election in 1992, was there was always the sense that the institutions were

discriminatory, racist, couldn't trust them. but if there were good people running them, it could make the difference. a lot of voters not only don't believe in the people running them, they don't believe in the institutions themselves. >> what changed? that's a dangerous thing. what changed? is there something you think could be done to cement those? >> i think there's just this desire for some disruptive politics. what the -- to your question, what i think the biden campaign is trying to do is saying disruptions at this moment in time is not helpful. we can talk about whether or not these institutions need to change if we need to pack the supreme court, if we need term limits on the justices, if we need to do things to keep our system intact. right now, we have to just get through this election. getting through this election means if you don't like me, vote for my agenda. i think that's what the biden campaign is trying to get across. the agenda, if not the man, is the thing that we need to be aspiring to.

>> is there anything that that could change? >> could change biden's plan as far as looking for those votes? >> yeah. also just for the perception of what we are as a country. >> we had merrick garland in at doj. he has gone through criticism for not moving fast enough. but if there's anyone more dotting is and crossing the ts and should make our country feel safer, it would be merrick garland. the problem is we are too divided. i don't know what gets us there. if it's donald trump in office next, it's going to completely crumble. the only hope is if joe biden is there for another four years, we slowly get back to normal because trump gets out of the spotlight. >> there are elections coming up in mexico sunday. today there was a huge issue in spain that the party in power gave -- they gave an

authorization for all crimes -- political crimes committed will be wiped clean so they could join the party in power. we as a country are seen throughout the world as consistent and democracy. >> they are being tested. there was a great article questioning whether or not we as americans are too sanguine. it has worked and it has laudable. but we have seen it get tested. how do we strengthen the pillars? >> donald trump is one who pushes isolationist. they don't care what the world thinks of us. that is equally as dangerous. >> that wraps up the hour for me. i'm jose diaz-balart. reach me on social media @jdbalart. watch clips from our show at

youtube. thank you for the privilege of your time. andrea mitchell picks up with more news after a quick break. shop... and i also have a non-profit. but no matter what business i'm in... my network and my tech need to keep up. thank you verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (waitress) all with the security features we need. (aaron) because my businesses are my life. man, the fish tacos are blowing up! so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. let's make it happen! (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on. deep down, i knew something was wrong. since my fatigue and light-headedness would come and go, i figured it wasn't a big deal. then i saw my doctor and found out i have afib, and that means there's about a 5 times greater risk of stroke. symptoms like irregular heartbeat, heart racing, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, or light- headedness can come and go. but if you have afib, the risk of stroke

is always there. if you have one or more symptoms, get checked out. holding off on seeing a doctor won't change whether or not you have afib. but if you do, making that appointment can help you get ahead of stroke risk. contact a doctor and learn more at notimetowait.com ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or

part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. so rich. so indulgent. it's new olay body wash. silky indulgent moisture. bye bye, dry skin. hello glow in just 14 days.

indulge. with olay body wash.