still at that point now we're getting so many notes and so many little time but it's all happening at the same time. you've heard about of this new note making its way from the jury, requesting the judge's instructions. if i remember coke those instructions lasted the better part of 90 minutes. so i don't know whether that will be sort of replayed here. but they are also requesting some key testimony from michael cohen, david pecker. there is a lot going on here. welcome everybody, of neil cavuto. what a lot of people thought would be an uneventful newsday, turning into a sort of double whammy with these no requests and everything else, going rocket -- right back into the courtroom to get it all settled. how long it takes, anybody's case. let's go to nate, i'm sure he has a far better idea than i do. >> hello neil, so the judge just suggested bringing to the jury back into go over some of the concerns you mention it, you mentioned the jury has two note so far, the most recent acumen nine minutes ago, the other over an hour ago. the most recent noted the jury want some clarification about of the jury instructions, the first node as you mentioned has to do with testimony from david packer and michael cohen, specifically relating to the 2015 trump tower meeting or prosecutors alleged in the conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election was born. in early before deliberations, we learn to jury instructions at the jury has a three separate options in regards to the underlying crime which is unlawfully influencing the 2016 election, but to meet the legal threshold of unlawful, in that law, here are the three options for the jurors be! the of dividers that trump falsified business records to conceal or commit eight federal election campaign act, the falsification of other business records, or a violation of tax laws. what's important is the juried a need to agree on which one of these trump is guilty of, only one of those three options. now toback instructor the jury in order to find a trumpet guilty, prosecutors must have proved that trump falsified or caused the falsification of business records, and that he did with the intent to commit or conceal one of those three prior underlying crimes. over the jury finds trumpet violated federal election law, that means you agrees to base for me daniels through michael cohen because of his 2016 presidential campaign. akey instruction from judge juan merchan to the jury reads "if payment would have been made in absence of candidacy, i should not be treated as contribution". remember, testifying that trump worried a very much about his wife's reaction to the stoning me daniels story resurfacing, it testifying he requested the newspapers do not be delivered to their private residence. if jury finds that trump made a payment to protect his wife, it would not be a fica violation. >> mr. trump: mother teresa cannot beat these charges be! these charges are rig, this whole thing is rigged. >> as owners following it minute by minute here the newest information, the judge is reading the notes back to the jury right now, we should be getting more information here shortly. a lot of people wondering what happens if donald trump is found guilty, new york caps the maximum sentence for those evil of funneling it for 20 years in prison but given the fact that donald trump is no conal history and nonviolent funds, legal analyst say present time is unlikely in this case -- criminal. >> niel: just to clarify, when you talk about with the judge, reading the notes back to the jury, those are his instructions, the initial instructions, by they took a believe originally close to 90 minutes, he's not going through the whole 90 minute thing again, is he? >> know, is not going through the entire jury instruction, he is reading the notes back to them and one of those notes has to do with the clarification on a specific point of his jury instruction. he is doing do that and also reading the notes back for david pecker and michael cohen specifically regarding the 2015 trump tower meeting. i believed is doing that to make sure that all the same page so they can answer those questions and go over the testimony that the jury needs a bit of a reminder on. >> niel: thank you a very much, at the new york state supreme court, a lot going on back in the court here, back with us, former federal prosecutor, when a u.s. attorney, we got andy mccarthy, the former assistant u.s. attorney fox news computer, andy, the significance on this, the judge kind of rereading some of those instructions, you want to guess which ones comment. >> no, i don't have enough to know which one. i would say it's not uncommon, lawyers, we have two lawyers on the jury but very often juries don't have lawyers on them. the notes are not always crystal clear about what exactly they're asking for or it could be what would be responsive to questions is answerable by multiple things and neither the instructions or the evidence. asking them to clarify basically what part of the instructions they want to hear and what other evidence they might want to h hear. >> niel: on that same issue, we are hearing from donavan turley, looks like he'll be excused for the day and addressed in the morning although this just started now i guess. again, keeping to that 4:30 o'clock deadline timeline, what you make of that? >> i think it might be a good sign there is a dispute among the jurors about what are the instructions said, the all took notes about of those, maybe is some internal disagreement about the specific instructions of the judge, is hard to really read into all of these things, it's a loses games probably. from my perspective it may indicate some division between the jurors and as we know president trump only needs one and jury demand jury for jury, i don't know if that's the best outcome but better than a conviction. >> niel: so that was fast, at an over there is a delay, carried that the judges meeting with them from the time they requested to go back to the courtroom, it does not seem like a great links of time, would he make all of this? >> you know, emma little surprised or being dismissed, most jurors want to get a case behind them. what i think the -- this tells us is her in for much longer deliberation and they don't have the optimism they could reach the verdict this evening. they probably sent the signal, nine out of ten times when a note comes out in the requesting a transcript, it's a difference of opinion on the recollection what it witness stated. not surprising, very typical, i think we will see more nodes and more interaction with the jury but i think it means we are in for much longer deliberation. >> niel: particularly interested in as i understand in what david pecker had to say, what michael cohen had to say, i don't know specifically what points in that leading to this meeting with donald trump or the trump tower. im curious what you make that this goes back solely the case of pecker to the first big witness, are they starting from the beginning, because damaging the time and in my head, who go by order who said what and when, this could be quite the delivery i -- deliberation. >> i think it's entirely possible that they started from the beginning. it has been, for example,, pecker was the first witness in the case, ends been five or six weeks and they heard this -- his testimony. that make sense, of their working through it. on the other hand if you're looking for what it's worth, it means they are at least testing the argument of the prosecution that this is all about a conspiracy to influence 2016 election, because pecker's testimony is really not relevant to the 34 charge alleged misrepresentation of what the business records are. y'all relate to stormy daniels who pecker did not pay,'s if i was trying to eat something into it, i would say probably they are looking at the possibility that this conspiracy is it a visit in for jade to the jury on the prosecution actually is the central thing in the trial. spee with three if i'm on the defense team, would i be worried about the pecker request, even more than the 3m you were not necessarily, you could be looking at the history of paying these nondisclosure agreements, if payments were to be made irrespective of a campaign for any other reason, that would lead to that there was no violation of an alleged campaign-finance all. again, hard to read what they are doing, maybe they're just having instructions about each of the witnesses, what the recollection was. but certainly all of this comes down to whether they can come to a unanimous decision at all, and it seems that there is early disagreement a might be less likely as time goes on to there. >> niel: i am just wondering about what happened from the west week of jury deliberation, i know into the case of the secretary he faced more than a dozen counts of miss purport parading funds, all of that, that was supposed to last a long time. and believe the jury ended up going back to 1987 on the -- they deliberated for ten hours. night and day, i grant you but is that in keeping with what you think this could be, longer comment what you think? >> my longest jury deliberation lasted for about 55 days, at that time, i really felt like it was more a desperation i wanted to get back to their normal life -- five days -- than their ability to continue their stamina to continue. i think there is certainly an increase in is the importance of this case, into the minds of the jury they have a chairman or a person order for woman and i think they are going to plough this very difficult case in a methodical way until the have neither the patients are stamina to finish. when that is, who knows. >> niel: i keep mentioning the donavan case, not because i coveted i was reported at the time but i thought it was interesting that everybody thought it would go a certain way, the former circuitry would be indicted on something because certainly there was a number of counts against him that made it look inevitable. everybody was surprised it did not happen that way, neither was it is expected that they would wrap up and come exonerate in all the players. maybe going back to them it has only to do with the clarity of the charges. the charges on fraud, the kind of stuff easily definable. here it is not. what you make of that comment -- teemac we might have lost him. let me go to that question with katie, it's at this motion of what you know and what could be easily defined, on wandering over the judge may have complicated things to this jury by being so vague about allowing different issues to come up not as black-and-white as it was in the secretary donavan, years after the fact in that case. what you make of that? >> any sort of confusion to the benefit of the defense, of this confusion there might be reasonable doubt about whether something was or was not established. that being said i do think the jury could come to a clear analysis of this case if they go down the elements of each of these offenses and ask it of the evidence supported the finding of guilt only minimal element which is the falsification of the documents, aren't calling these payments legal expenses. if the answer is no, there's no evidence showing that is false, that is an audit guilty on all charges. there's always some jurors are want to go excruciatingly slow in some cases from everything even though they may ultimately come around. that could be the case here as well. >> niel: they might be 12 angry men in that group there. but let me get your thoughts on that, when you see or you hear jury come back and requesting certain testimony, certain clarifications, a judge's instructions over again. people jump and try to read into that so much. myself included. but you guys of the experts, suffers to you, do you read any significance and to the details they are looking for today question mark. >> i think they're just getting started guide the study from the beginning, there's probably some discussion in some disagreement about what was said by the witnesses they have asked about. and then it is very standard for the jurors to ask about the law, look at it, refer to it, and them all of the law that was read to them, so they can reference it, see you they can get full transcripts. but what you have is a jury i think at this point that as you indicated are dealing with a messy case, it is not find it, it's not a proven. it's the exact case that a directed verdict was intended for. where you don't have the defendant on noticeable with underlying crime is and he cannot instruct the jury on which crime of the or to assess unanimously. and instead it, you have this messy, messy case presented and it's been made worse by the law that is been instructed. this is an impossible situation for the jury's. i feel for them, it's a fatal flaw what the judge has allowed and has done in this case and i expect it will be reversed fairly quickly. >> niel: not to jokingly mentioned the case of the 12 angry men, the movie and the book, but what stood out was that one juror who just was not convinced, a different case, a different topic that. is that the kind of thing that happens when you follow these things, one or two auto jurors who are not going along with the others or our parting company from the others are just scratching their heads saying no, i need to know more, i need to go back and study this more. and of that is the case, dozen that, canned the possibility of lengthening the deliberations. soon obvious everybody has their own personality and style when it comes to these things, but if it's at an impasse in their hopelessly deadlocked, they're going to have to indicate that to the judge. but before the indicated that of course there will be efforts to see if they can come do some sort of consensus twomak if there is a mistrial, i wonder if alvin bragg will retry this case because i think that could be done relatively quickly. >> niel: thank you very much. the jury has been dismissed, you will obviously go through these instructions tomorrow morning and at that same courtroom and they will get to the bottom of some of these other requests, david packer, michael cohen's testimony, we don't know specifically what they are, but they are looking at something that certainly on the case of pecker who was the first key witness. give their working backwards from the beginning, play over to speed what is repeated, this could be a lengthy and deliberative process. maybe not. the donavan case in the eighties without that would drag on, but everybody thought he would turn out to spend the last -- the entire of his life in jail. and he was exonerated. holy so, no more sweating all night no kicking off the covers or blasting the air conditioning. because only the tempur-pedic breeze is made with our one-of-a-kind cooling technology— that pulls heat away from your body. so, the mattress feels up to 10° cooler all night long. during the tempur-pedic memorial day sale, save up to $500 on select adjustable mattress sets, and experience deep, undisturbed rest. learn more at tempurpedic.com our biggest challenge? uncertainty. hidden fees, surcharges... who knows what to expect! turn shipping to your advantage. keep it simple...with clear, upfront pricing. with usps ground advantage®. ♪ oh no. running low? with chewy, always keep their bowl full. save 35% on your first autoship order. get the food they love. delivered again and again. (♪) [thud] >> niel: you probably learn something new everyday about this trial,, but something important, even though the home in manhattan is relatively nearby, from house to hang out of the court house all day as long as the jury is deliberating. i don't know why that is the case, maybe with the security it's just easier but it is a little novel, but i'm no expert cottages find it to be the case, as his journey continues to deliver to some people say it could wrap up early, it could go on for days or next week. then we have the political impact of this, of course some will argue thanks to all over the notoriety, the, the pylon that's unbelievable trump is getting here that his poll numbers held up in his doctor doing better than the start of the trial, leading joe biden in all of the key battleground states, manchester, following all of this, the politics reporter. this is amazing how he has to stick around the courthouse. jessica anybody else to be fair. but this could go on for days, i do not know why that is the case, it is what it is that goes but we do know you sort of like a prisoner in that courthouse until it is resolved one way or the other. >> i don't know why that is either but one thing for sure is if donald trump was allowed to leave the court house he would be free to campaign and meet with the voters and we have seen that he's been able to do that. he had one rally in the bronx, some fundraising to trips here and they are, for the most part, he is very much used this trial to campaign, that one hallway outside of the court room where you to television cameras and reporters, communicating with his base, interesting to see how he's become with an entourage. we saw barnett donald, lots of lawmakers that support donald trump. it's been away for him to campaign. that certainly works for his base of voters but i'm curious to see how that works with independent swing voters because it looking at a polls, those independent swing voters are not following this as closely. >> niel: good point, it attracts a number of entourages, that bound interesting that biden folks put out robert de niro out there. he spoke his mind, day donald trump spoke about the schmuck spoke his mind about of this. >> donald trump has created this, should be telling him not to do this but he's just... he wants to so total chaos. >> mr. trump: of than they have a protester, a robert de niro, broken down full, standing up there. he got maggots. >> i haven't heard that phrase before. >> niel: we've left out of the stuff that our impressionable audience would hear from robert de niro but it was odd, getting into entourages are going on each other. >> is one presidential candidate, on the presidential ticket, donald trump and the biden campaign and listing robert de niro. wasn't exactly on our bingo card, we knew that a robert de niro was in and add at least by the biden haters campaign. but it's just it was interesting to see that because the biden campaign getting the administration has been a very careful not to touch this trial. the rightfully so are focused on those kitchen table issues, the economy, healthcare, food prices, but there has to come a point where there is such an unprecedented trial, because it is the prison joe biden is running against at the have to address the. but it was surprising to see them address it for now by bringing it robert de niro out front in the courthouse. >> niel: they double down on those, we are told that president biden is preparing to a national address when we know the ultimate verdict. good idea, a bad idea? you mentioned before they were ignoring those, now going for full throttle with this. >> i think he has to do this, it makes sense, he has not really addressed this, he's fine to speak with his supporters on the average american voters and the average of voters, the persuadable voters trying to decide between trauma and biden, they may be paying attention to this trial and of following the coverage, were there also paying attention to inflation, the economy, their kitchen table issues. so talking what all those issues more. like i said, this is his opponent, it's a former president, it's coming at a time when the nation is extremely divided, i think there is an opportunity for joe biden to strike a guess a court of unity in a way, it's extending an all of branch to donald trump. but it is an opportunity for joe biden. >> niel: a wonder of t