temidayo, your take?>> thinking about how i think about cross examination, the danger here is that someone on the stand can flip from villain to hero if you're too aggressive on cross examination, and that's a danger here is that, you know, she had some challenges, stormy daniels, when she was on direct examination, but i think if trump's lawyers go after her too aggressively trying to beat her up. trying to shame her. trying to attack her in this kind of tone they're doing now, the jury may start to find her sympathetic, and all of a sudden those credibility points you have raised effectively start to become less what this is about, and i think that's the danger here. if they go down this route, were they really trying to tear stormy daniels down as a person, i don't know how they really use that when it comes down to closing arguments, which is what this all comes down. what is the argument they're going to make to the jury about why the elements here have not met. if you stand up and say, ladies and ge

appreciate that. >>> back with us, misty maris, temidayo ganga williams.our 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 thin

also with us, catherine christian, former manhattan assistant district attorney, temidayo agone da williamsmer federal prosecutor, and adam pollock, and judge diane keyes l, a retired court judge. yasmin, what's going on right now? >> reporter: ten hours of closing yesterday. here we are, jury instructions happening any moment now. court beginning at 10:00 a.m. donald trump inside the courtroom not making any comments as he was walking in. let's just remind folks where we are and what these charges kind of make up. the falsification of business records to conceal another crime violating of campaign finance laws, violation of new york tax laws, violation of election laws as well. so if you can imagine, these 12 jurors will have to understand and grapple with what exactly these charges are to whether or not they're going to come up with a verdict of guilty and/or not guilty. those jury instructions expected to last about an hour, and then they go into deliberations, when they are in deliberations, they're able to ask the judge questions. every time a question is asked of a judge, both defense

was it the right move, temidayo, for his team to say, no, and for him ultimately to relent?it was 100% the right move. i think it would have been a complete disaster if he received. i don't think you can imagine a witness with more credibility issues than the former president. he is a well determined liar. and i think the fact that judge merchan limited some of the topics regarding credibility still left him open. i think you would have seen prosecution spend extensive time walking the jury through why the former president was not telling the truth, and i think the more difficult part about that is that i don't know that he would have had the proper demeanor and presentation to handle that kind of vigorous cross examination and do so well. >> and we saw in cross examination, for example, the defense's witness costello didn't handle it exactly precisely probably best for the defense. but what do you think the message is that the jury is getting from this major defense. handful, right? wasn't a long defense presentation. so, this person is being confrontational to the prosecut

. >> this is a perfect example of what temidayo and michael were just talking about. >> that meeting.> the fact that that meeting occurred is corroborated 5,000 different ways. there's emails, there's texts, there's there's testimony from madeline, who was the secretary outside the oval office? no question. that meeting happened. no question when it happened. but as to what exactly was said, that's really just michael cohen's word. and so he is corroborated, but he's not all the way corroborated the jury, they can't get around the fact that the jury has to put some faith in michael cohen's word especially about the purpose of the payments. i mean, that's that's very important part of this case is that did this money was it a reimbursement? i think there's a lot of proof about that, but also the the the records, the business records that are allegedly false, they have to trust colon that cohen that that trump knew the records were false. that's really on colon and that's a big part of the confirm and thanks very much katelyn. i'll just question how the jury will take all this coming up