today at your core.com we are on verdict washed 12 jurors now, hours into deliberations and former president donald trump's criminal hush money trial. >> we're following all the details from the courthouse and hollywood stars wary of play having a leading role in president biden's reelection campaign why some headliners think this time it may be too high risk and it's a kind of home loan that's giving 20081 of the nation's largest lenders just launched a zero down mortgage. that's got some housing experts worried. we're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in, right here to cnn news central richard three and former president trump's hush money trial has resumed deliberations after rehearing key witness testimony. i've or sanchez alongside briana cuellar and the nation's capital the second day of deliberations kicked off today with a judge rereading parts of his jury instructions, and with court reporters reading back portions of michael cohen and david pecker's testimony, and that includes pecker's testimony about a call that he had with trump about former playboy model karen mcdougal and pecker's testimony about his decision do not to seek repayment from trump for securing rights to mcdougal story in perpetuity life rights as they're known court reporters also read back testimony from both pecker and cohen about a meeting at trump tower in 2015 cnn chief legal affairs correspondent paula reid is with us now. >> she's there outside the courthouse in new york, apollo takeaways he is today so far so what really strikes me is how methodical the jury is clearly being in this historic task because they've deliberate about donald trump fate. >> and i would expect nothing else from this very when have been in the courtroom. if you look at them, they're also attentive, even during some of the deadly boring parts of this trial, there were so attentive clearly conscious of the store nature of what they're undertaking now that they are in deliberations and they specifically asked for a specific portions of testimony from the beginning of this alleged conspiracy see, and that suggests that they are taking a linear or a chronological approach to this. again, it speaks to how methodical they appear to be. they appear to be right now now they also ask for abortions of the instructions that they had just heard earlier yesterday morning, i was a little surprised by that because i thought you just heard these instructions a few hours ago. when, there were read back by the judge this morning, it was clear that these are actually confusing several of them like they're talking about here is say took me back to law school. this is incredibly complex and it really does make things harder, but they don't have a physical copy of this. it's like trying to play a board game with people well, for the first time, no one has a copy of the rules. you know, at some point if you were going to get into an argument about what the rules are not terribly surprising that they had to have portions of the instructions read back. why not the last time they would likely ask for some additional clarity? furcation on those instructions. but if you look at one of the instructions that was read back, it's a metaphor about rain. the metaphor is that you go to sleep at night, you don't see any rain, but when you wake up the sidewalk is wet, people are wearing raincoats and carrying on gorillas. >> and they explain to the jury that under those circumstances it may be reasonable to infer or concluded that it rain during the night. so they're taking in other words, the facts of it having rained while you were asleep, it's an inference that might be drawn from the proven facts of the presence of water on the street and the sidewalk when people in raincoats and carrying on bellas it's a metaphor and this is one of their instructions. mean imagine how difficult it is to go back to her room with 12 different people, all of different lived experiences. and you have to apply one of the things you have to apply is this metaphor 230 people were different counts. it speaks to how challenging this process can be. the jury system is amazing, is carried out every day in america, thousands of times, but this is a difficult thing to do, especially when these are the kinds of instructions that you have intelligent minds can likely disagree about inferences, about the facts, about the instructions that they have received. so this could be awhile before we get a verdict from this jury. but one thing i do predict is that we will likely hear from them again today. i expect that they're going to have more questions. they've heard a lot over the past seven weeks, and i expect they're going to want to hear some other things read back to them because again, they have some evidence on their laptop, but they don't have access to transcripts of witness testimony. and as we know, a lot of this case really depends on what they heard from witnesses it is on the stand we will be eagerly awaiting any sign from the jury as to how deliberations are going. paula reid. thank you so much. we want to go now to cnn's kara scannell. >> she's been in the courthouse all morning. cara, what is it like to be inside that room laborious the last two hours has been relatively silent. >> the jury's behind closed doors a variety, donald trump and his team are in their room, prosecutors are in their room, and so it's just the media that's sitting in the courtroom waiting for the buzzer to go off to see what the next development in this trial will be. but they've been working behind closed doors for two hours. one of the new things that they ask the judge for today, we're headphones and indication that they wanted to plug into the laptop and listen to some of the evidence we've heard. actually, a lot of evidence that has been audio or video, and that includes donald trump's campaign in speeches, michael cohen's podcasts, and then recorded phone conversations between michael cohen and keith davidson that was stormy daniels attorney. and then the recorded phone of excusing the recording in-person conversation between michael cohen and donald trump. we don't know which one of these or how many of them they're going to be listening to. but it was something that they asked for. the judge offered them speakers or headphones speakers so that multiple individuals can listen at once and the jury foreman said they would take both of those options. so that was the last thing we heard from them before they went back behind those closed doors to continue their deliberations. and we're at a lunch break right now. they can deliberate if they want to, but they don't need to, and they all have to be together in order to deliberate. so you know, this this is still a moving target, but we will not hear any notes or any developments in this next hour because we are at a london trachs. so the next thing that we will do when we get back inside at 2:00 is then wait to see if there's additional notes today or if there aren't with remains to be seen today. in the courtroom, it was just a smaller group accompanying former president donald trump, his son, eric trump was with him, as well as one of his friends, steve witkoff, a real willis state executive. and i've saw trump just before he was walking out of the courtroom to go into their room where they are waiting this out. he flashed a thumbs up to win cough. who walked out with him. so a smaller entourage today for the former president as he's waiting in the courthouse to see what the next steps in these deliberations will bring for us. brianna now, waiting as we all are kara scannell outside the courthouse in manhattan. >> thank you so much. briana. >> let's dig into this a little more now with our senior legal analyst, elie honig. elie take us through with the jury after having been re-read these jury instructions is probably looking at so they got some more information today about the weeds of the actual facts, but they also the judge for a little more information about the charges that they ultimately will be delivering a verdict on. let's walk through those charges because they're more complicated here than in the normal case. now, step one, the base charge is falsifying business records, which is basically what it sounds like. they took these payments, which were really meant to reimburse stormy daniel's is hush money and they tried to call them and label them as legal fees. that's the prosecution's theory. >> but then part two, that the prosecution has to prove is they did that in order to commit or further another crime, the prosecution's theory is that that another crime is a violation of new york state campaign law. >> and that law says that you cannot try to influence an election by unlawful means. now, this is the part where it gets really complicated prosecutors have given the jury a menu of three possible, quote unlawful means. one of them federal campaign laws. another one is falsification of still other business records. and the last one is tax fraud. but realistically, the prosecutor fusion spent next to no time on these two theories. it's really, let's be realistic here about federal campaign finance laws. and just to remind people of the core transactions here that form the basis of the charges about a week before the 2016 election, michael cohen paid stormy daniels $130,000 in hush money. he essentially paid out of his own from pocketing, took a loan off of his own mortgage, paid her, and then over the year that followed donald trump and the trump organization, they reimburse michael cohen a total of $420,000. and again, the theory is this here was really a campaign contribution designed to silence stormy daniels. and this here they tried to make it look like legal fees or painters. that's the falsification with an intent to influence the election. so a couple of things the jury is back there now, the six alternates they've been split off. there's still technically on duty, but they're not in the deliberation room. these 12 people are in the room by themselves? no, judge. the judge instructed them, but he's not in there with them. no court reporter? no, nothing. they have to reach union committee to render a verdict has to be 120 guilty or 120 not guilty. anything else will be a hung jury. they do have some options though because we're talking about so many counts of falsifying records take us through this. this is such an important point. there are 34 counts in this indictment, one count for each of the 11 different invoices, 12 different vouchers, 11 different checks. they really are going to we say a verdict, when is the verdict? it's really 34 different verdicts there are ways the jury can split this for example, i'll give you two examples. one, it might be that the jury says the nine checks that donald trump himself signed his signatures on there, they might find the evidence is stronger as to those and find him guilty on those nine and not guilty on the other 25 counts. another the possibility the invoices the invoices actually say the word retainer like legal retainer on them. but the checks don't actually say that word. so it could be that the jury says, well, that's false. it says retainer, so guilty on these 11, but the others don't. so not guilty on the other. so there's a lot of permutations and juries do like to compromise they get stuck if they can. >> so they'd been on occasion sounding the buzzer, which is sort of making me think of downton abbey, but nonetheless have lovin, it shouldn't really is jingle the base based on the buzzer we ran note cards. we do, we certainly do in a different way than pavlov's dogs. but nonetheless tell us about the notes so far and also what could come. >> so there are basically a few categories of notes. they can ask for legal instructions and guess what, this morning, they got almost half of the entire legal instruction, read back then that happens all the time. jurors will say, can you give us the part about reasonable that again, can you give us the part about witness credibility? so the judge spent about 45 minutes this morning giving them repeating the legal instructions. you can see the jury asked for specific evidence or testimony. now, here are they're not going to ask for evidence because they have it. that's the laptop that they have, but they certainly can and have asked for testimony this morning. they wanted more testimony related david pecker and michael cohen. we could see more notes along that miscellaneous notes karam was just talking about. i find this interesting. they wanted headphones and speakers. i mean, look, it tells me they're listening to the tapes. there's a handful of tapes in this case, so you can deduce that much and then finally, they will presumably at some point tell us we have a verdict and if they do that, the judges there's instructions to them or send me a note saying we have a verdict, but don't tell me what it is they liked the whole drama of it. if there's a verdict, everyone will rush into place. we will rush into place, and then it will be formally read. but another other thing i just want to highlight, we're not at this point, we've not seen this, but sometimes juries in these miscellaneous categories will send a note i've had this happen to me. it's not great as a prosecutor saying we're stuck. what do we do? we can't get to unanimity at that point. the judge will give them what we call an allen charge, an extra charge, basically saying if humanly possible, you need to get back there and try to reach a unanimous verdict. so we've already started to see some of these come through. we don't know how often they could come through and we could get four more today. we could get no more today, we've got to stay flexible. >> alright. we certainly will here we are. elie. thank you so much for taking us through all of that for us let's discuss further with jury consultant alan tuerkheimer. >> alan, thank you so much for being with us. how do you read the jury's request? so far, does it tell you anything about where they might be in the deliberations there's so much information that they have. >> i can't tell you specifically what they're trying to do, what they're piecing together, or if there's a split in the deliberation, but there's just it's information overload a trial like this of this magnitude with all these witnesses and then you get this ambiguous and complex law that each side is trying to get the jurors to have different interpretations of so it is a lot and i think one of the instructions that struck me was you're allowed to take notes. but then when you bring them back in the deliberation, you're not allowed to rely on somebody else's notes. so when that happens they were said that you have to attach significance to the actual testimony or the evidence so that might be wide that some of the jurors might be thinking about their notes, but then a juror who maybe didn't take those notes is thing as saying, well, i had a different recollection and maybe that's why they're asking for more information for more testimony, but there's just so much out there it's so much out there for one person then you think about it. you have to get 12 people to agree on it and tara to get 12 people to agree on anything when they're ordering lunch, if they're asked what do you guys want for lunch, do you think 12 people are going to say right away, oh, let's have sub sandwiches or whatever it is, it's a difficult task indeed yeah no question about that. is that also typically why a jury might ask for parts of the instructions to be re-read? could it be that they either remembered? instructions differently or that they interpreted them in different ways sure. >> you could have a juror say that when the judge read the instruction on making inferences or circumstantial evidence. i thought he meant xyz and another german. no, i think it's more of taking a leap where there's no direct evidence and if there's any kind of dispute or controversy or even disagreement and the jury can be even mild or low key. they might think, okay. well, we're not sure we have to get it right. let's let's ask the judge and it seems like that's what they're doing. >> allen, i want to get your thoughts on this metaphor that judge merchan used about rain. essentially, he was telling the jury that they could use common sense or or infer certain things based on evidence. the rain metaphor is essentially that you don't necessarily have to see it reigning to know that it did like if you take a nap, you wake up and there's water on the ground outside. there's precipitation all over the place on your window. perhaps you can logically, the duct that it rained. what do you make of that in the context of this case? >> right i'm from wisconsin, so it's snow where i come from, but they're just trying to piece it together and they're they're they're assessing something and some jurors might be thinking, well, we don't have a smoking gun, maybe that came up, that's talked about a lot. and in deliberations or some kind of real direct evidence, but it's the common sense aspect that you just reference that if some jurors have a really strong feeling based on evidence and they think that they can get to this point, that they can connect the dots. they want to know if that will fit within the definition of circumstantial evidence. it's not direct evidence, but circumstantial evidence as judges often say, can be just as powerful in persuasive as direct evidence. >> so would you say that benefits the prosecution then? >> i'm not sure. sometimes you have jurors playing devil's advocate, and they might say, well, let's just take everything in light. most favorable. the prosecution, let's see if we can get there and then maybe they can't. so it's hard to know which side that really benefits what it tells me is that they are really taking this seriously. and if they have any questions that come up, they're not hesitant to alan tuerkheimer. >> you got cut off right at the last second, but we've got the point and we appreciate your perspective. thanks for being with us so we're staying on top of all the details coming out of the courthouse plus lights, camera, and not that much action. why some hollywood stars? cars are worried about playing a key role in the upcoming election and a new study finds a potential link between tattoos and the type of cancer. but there's let's push back with some experts, say not so fast, so we'll explain this russia for trying to spy on us. >> we were spying on on i'm it friday this is a war but secret war, secrets and spies, a nuclear game. premier sunday at ten on cnn power e trades easy to use tools may complex trading, less complicated, custom scans help you find new trading opportunities. >> while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of the market e-trade from morgan stanley explore the. world. >> the viking way. >> from the quiet comfort of elegance, small ships with no children and no casinos. we actually have reinvented ocean voyages designing all inclusive experiences for the thinking person viking voted world's best by both travel and leisure and condi nast traveler learn more at viking, don't this making you uncomfortable good. >> when you've got type two diabetes like me, you have up to four times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or worse death even when meeting your a1c goal. this comfort 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 oh, cornea awda. it's gotten me. i saw them. that's what i got. igneous carnegie got a meeting her name, but with more me, riccati carnage icing it like this. juicy earn as car. and use holes arthritis pain. we say not today. tanno, at arthritis pain has two layers of re