LOOK IN A TIKTOK VIDEO. WE BEGIN WITH KATY TUR, WHO IS INSIDE THE COURT OVERFLOW ROOM THIS MORNING, LEGAL ANALYST AND FORMER ASSISTANT D.A. CATHERINE CHRISTIAN, ANOTHER MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER PROSECUTOR PAUL BUTLER AND FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY PAUL CHARLTON. KATY, TO YOU. THREE NOTES IN TOTAL. WHAT ARE THE KEY PORTIONS THE JURORS WANTED TO HEAR FOR A SECOND TIME? DID DONALD TRUMP REACT AT ALL? >> Reporter: DONALD TRUMP DIDN'T REACT AT ALL TO GET THAT OVER WITH. HE SAT THERE, SLUMPED LOW IN HIS CHAIR. HIS EYES WERE CLOSED FOR MUCH OF THE READING OF THE TESTIMONY. HE WASN'T SLEEPING. HE WOULD OPEN THEM UP, READJUST HIS TIE. BUT HE ACTED AS HE ACTED THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL. LEANING BACK AND SHUTTING HIS EYES. THE JURY WANTED TO HEAR THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS OVER AGAIN, A PORTION. THEY WANTED TO HEAR FOUR KEY POINTS OF TESTIMONY. IT WAS TESTIMONY REGARDING MICHAEL COHEN AND DAVID PECKER, A PHONE CALL THAT DAVID PECKER HAD ABOUT KAREN McDOUGAL WITH MICHAEL COHEN WHERE PECKER SAID HE WOULD TEAR UP THE RIGHTS. MICHAEL COHEN SAID THE BOSS WILL BE ANGRY. PECKER IS ASKED, WHO DID YOU ASSUME THE BOSS TO BE? THE BOSS WAS DONALD TRUMP. A PHONE CALL BETWEEN DONALD TRUMP AND DAVID PECKER REGARDING PAY. THEN ESSENTIALLY, MOST ESSENTIALLY I THINK, A KEY MEETING AT TRUMP TOWER. THE 2015 MEETING REGARDING THIS SCHEME, HOW IT CAME INTO BEING. DAVID PECKER'S TESTIMONY AS WELL AS MICHAEL COHEN'S TESTIMONY. THE POINT I FOUND SO POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND IMPORTANT WAS THE WAYS IN WHICH MICHAEL COHEN'S TESTIMONY AND DAVID PECKER'S TESTIMONY LINED UP ALMOST EXACTLY, ALMOST IN THE SAME EXACT LANGUAGE. I WILL READ A LITTLE FROM IT. PECKER SAYS, THEY CALLED ME INTO TRUMP TOWER TO ASK ME HOW I COULD HELP WITH THE CAMPAIGN, KEY POINT CAMPAIGN. IN COHEN'S TESTIMONY, WE CALLED PECKER IN TO ASK HOW HE COULD HELP WITH THE CAMPAIGN. AGAIN CAMPAIGN. PECKER SAYS, I SAID I WOULD BE THE EYES AND EARS FOR THE CAMPAIGN. I WOULD BLOCK NEGATIVE STORIES. I WOULD LET THEM KNOW ABOUT NEGATIVE STORIES AS THEY CAME UP. MICHAEL COHEN TESTIFIES, PECKER SAID HE WOULD BE THE EYES FOR THE CAMPAIGN. PECKER SAYS, DONALD TRUMP TOLD ME MICHAEL COHEN WOULD BE THE POINT PERSON. MICHAEL COHEN SAYS, I WAS THE POINT PERSON. THIS IS ALL THE WAYS WHERE PIKAL COHEN'S TESTIMONY DOES NOT STAND ALONE. WE SAW THE DEFENSE TRY TO POKE HOLE IN COHEN'S CREDIBILITY. THE PROSECUTION TRIED TO BUFFETT COHEN'S TESTIMONY WITH THE TESTIMONY OF OTHERS. HERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE THEY LINE UP ALMOST EXACTLY. THE JURORS WANTED TO HEAR ABOUT THAT. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT DOCUMENTS. THEY WANTED TO HEAR ABOUT HOW THIS SCHEME, AS THE PROSECUTION CALLS IT, CAME UP. THAT'S WHAT I FELT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE FOUR QUESTIONS WE GOT FROM THE JURY. >> THE FACT AS KATY IS POINTING OUT, THE FACT THEY WANTED TO ZOOM IN OR ZONE IN ON THAT KEY PART OF THE TESTIMONY, THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY, THE MOMENTS IN TRUMP TOWER WHEN DONALD TRUMP WAS INVOLVED AND ALSO SEPARATELY ON MICHAEL COHEN'S TESTIMONY, A SEGMENT OF HIS TESTIMONY WHERE HE TALKED ABOUT TALKING TO PECKER AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING AND THAT HE WOULD ALWAYS BRIEF TRUMP ON IT, THAT TRUMP WAS ALWAYS PART OF IT. THAT'S THE KEY ISSUE. WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY ARE DOING THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE ON THE JURY WHO ARE NOT PERSUADED AND WANT TO SEE IT IN AND THEY'RE HAVING AN ARGUMENT INSIDE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR IT. THEY ARE FOCUSING ON THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY, THE HEART OF THE CASE. >> YOU DON'T WANT TO BE COCKY WHEN YOU ARE A PROSECUTOR. I WOULD ALWAYS BE HAPPY IF THIS WAS THE READING. THE LEAD PROSECUTOR IN HIS SUMMATION TOLD THEM THAT THE CONSPIRACY TO PROMOTE THE ELECTION BY UNLAWFUL MEANS WAS HATCHED AT THAT AUGUST 2015 MEETING. THEY WANT TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT. WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT THESE -- THE TESTIMONY FROM PECKER AND COHEN, YOU TALK ABOUT A PHONE CALL. DONALD TRUMP CALLED PECKER AND ASKED HIM FOR HELP. IT WASN'T PECKER CALLING TRUMP OR COHEN CALLING PECKER. IT PUTS TRUMP AT THE HEART, THE LEAD OF THE CONSPIRACY, NOT THIS PASSIVE PERSON WITH MICHAEL COHEN IN CHARGE GOING ROGUE. AGAIN, IT COULD BE JUST THREE JURORS WHO WANTED TO HEAR THIS. BUT IF I'M THE PROSECUTOR, I'M HAPPY THEY ARE FOCUSING ON THAT. I'M ALSO HAPPY THEY WANTED THE LAW READ BACK, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A LOT TO READ BACK. I'M HOPING THEY ARE APPLYING THE LAW AND THE FACTS IN A REALLY KEY -- TO KEY IN. >> PAUL CHARLTON, WEIGH IN IN TERMS OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CASE. THEY HAVE A CHOICE OF WHAT THE UNDERLYING ALLEGED CRIME COULD BE. THAT'S SORT OF A DEALER'S CHOICE. BUT THE FACT THAT THEY SEEM TO BE FOCUSED ON THE HEART OF THE CASE. WHAT IS THAT TELLING YOU AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR? >> LIKE KATHERINE, ANDREA, I TRY TO BE HUMBLE ABOUT THESE THINGS, CAUTIOUS HOW YOU READ THESE THINGS. IT'S HARD TO ASSIGN WITH ANY REAL DEGREE OF CERTAINTY WHAT THIS MEANS EXACTLY. I WOULD TAKE SOME COMFORT IN THE FACT THAT THEY ARE FOCUSING ON THIS ASPECT OF THE CONSPIRACY. AT THE SAME TIME, YOU WILL RECALL PART OF THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS READ BACK DEALT WITH THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. PECKER IN WHICH PECKER HAD A DIFFICULT TIME ASSIGNING CERTAIN DATES. THIS IS ONLY HUMAN, THE DEFENSE WILL GRASP ON THOSE ASPECTS OF THE READING THAT THEY LIKE. THESE QUESTIONS THAT THE JURORS ARE ASKING, THEY ARE IMPORTANT. THEY GIVE SOME TELL. THERE MAY BE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE CLEARER, THAT WILL SHOW WITH GREATER DEGREE OF CERTAINTY EXACTLY WHERE THE JURY IS. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE THAT I HAVE SEEN IN MY EXPERIENCE BEFORE, WHEN THE JURY ASKS THE JUDGE, HOW LONG DO WE HAVE TO DELIBERATE IF WE CANNOT COME TO A UNANIMOUS VERDICT? THAT'S CLEARLY A TELL THAT THE JURORS MAY BE LOCKED. THEY MAY NOT HAVE A UNANIMOUS VERDICT FOR GUILTY OR INNOCENCE. THAT WOULD BE CERTAINLY A GOOD TELL FOR THE TRUMP TEAM. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU MAY GET A QUESTION FROM THE JURORS THAT ASKS FOR A READING OF TESTIMONY, AS THEY HAVE DONE HERE, BUT FOR ROBERT COSTELLO. YOU RECALL THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN A SMART MOVE BY THE DEFENSE TO CALL THAT WITNESS. THEY WANTED HIM TO IMPEACH MR. COHEN. INSTEAD, THEY SUPPORTED THE PROSECUTION CASE. THERE MAY BE OTHER QUESTIONS DOWN THE ROAD THAT WILL GIVE US CLEARER INSIGHT INTO WHERE THE JURY IS. >> PAUL BUTLER, WERE YOU SURPRISED THEY WANTED SO MUCH OF THE JUDGE AS INSTRUCTIONS READ BACK TO THEM? >> NOT AT ALL. I'M A LAW PROFESSOR AND A FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR. IF I HEARD THOSE INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL THOSE HOURS ORALLY, I WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND THEM EITHER. I WAS ON A COMMISSION SPONSORED BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION THAT RECOMMENDED BEST PRACTICES FOR JURIES. ONE OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WAS THAT JURIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TAKE THE INSTRUCTIONS INTO THE DELIBERATION ROOM WITH THEM, ESPECIALLY IN A COMPLICATED CASE LIKE THIS. I WASN'T SURPRISED THAT JUST HEARING THEM ONCE, THEY NEEDED TO HEAR THEM AGAIN. IT SHOWS THAT THEY ARE APPROACHING THEIR WORK WITH DILIGENCE. >> KATY, WHEN YOU WERE WATCHING ALL OF THIS FROM INSIDE THE OVERFLOW ROOM, WHAT WAS DONALD TRUMP LOOKING LIKE? WHAT WAS THE EFFECT OF THE PEOPLE -- HIS SUPPORTERS AND HIS ATTORNEYS? >> LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE DETAIL. IT'S NEW YORK CITY. YOU WILL HEAR SIRENS. YOU ARE LOOKING AT GIANT MONITORS. A COUPLE OF THEM IN THE ROOM THAT SHOW DONALD TRUMP. IT SHOWS THE PROSECUTION SITTING AT A TABLE. THE JUDGE. IT DOES NOT SHOW THE JURY. DID SHOW S IT SHOWS A LITTLE BIT OF THE GROUP IN THE COURTROOM. IT WILL SHOW IN THIS CASE THE PEOPLE WHO WERE PLAYING WITNESS AND QUESTIONER UP ON THE WITNESS BOX. IN ORDER TO GET A REALLY GOOD PICTURE OF DONALD TRUMP WHEN YOU ARE IN THIS OVERFLOW ROOM, YOU HAVE TO BRING BINOCULARS. I'M TWO ROWS BACK FROM THE BARRIER WHERE THE MONITOR IS. I'M USING A PAIR OF BINOCULARS TO GET A BETTER SENSE OF WHAT DONALD TRUMP IS DOING. HE WAS STONE-FACED, BORDERLINE SCOWL. HE HAS BEEN SITTING THE SAME WAY. MOST OF THE TIME HE HAS BEEN SITTING STRAIGHT FORWARD, EVEN THOUGH SLUMPED IN HIS CHAIR. TODAY HE WAS ANGLED TOWARD THE JURY. AGAIN, HIS EYES WERE CLOSED MOST OF THE TIME. HE WASN'T SLEEPING. I SAW HIM WAKE UP OR OPEN HIS EYES A FEW TIMES TO ADJUST HIMSELF OR TO LOOK AT PAPERS OR AS THE CONVERSATION WAS CHANGING. HE IS DEFINITELY STILL ALERT, EVEN THOUGH HIS EYES ARE CLOSED. THE ROWS BEHIND HIM ARE POPULATED WITH SUPPORTERS. TODAY, IT WAS JUST A FEW SECRET SERVICE AGENTS, ERIC TRUMP AND A COUPLE OF OTHERS. IT WASN'T AS BIG OF A GROUP AS IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST THAT HAVE COME THERE TO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT. WHEN THEY WERE READING BACK JURY INSTRUCTIONS, THE PART THAT PERKED ME UP IS THE DEFINITION OF REASONABLE DOUBT. WE KNOW THE STANDARD HERE IS YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT DONALD TRUMP IS GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I JUST THINK IT'S INTERESTING TO READ THIS PORTION ONCE AGAIN FOR THE AUDIENCE. A REASONABLE DOUBT IS AN HONEST DOUBT OF THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT FOR WHICH A REASON EXISTS BASED UPON THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE. AS TO AN ACTUAL DOUBT, NOT AN IMAGINARY DOUBT. IT'S A DOUBT THAT A REASONABLE PERSON ACTING IN A MATTER OF THIS IMPORTANCE WOULD BE LIKELY TO ENTERTAIN BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED OR BECAUSE OF A LACK OF CONVINCING EVIDENCE. PROOF OF GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IS PROOF THAT LEAVES YOU SO FIRMLY CONVINCED OF THE DEFENDANT'S GUILTY THAT YOU HAVE NO REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ELEMENT OF THE CRIME OR THE DEFENDANT'S IDENTITY AS THE PERSON WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME. IT'S A LOT OF SEMANTICS THERE. THAT'S THE BURDEN THAT THE JURY HAS, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THEY BELIEVE THE PROSECUTION HAS PRESENTED THEM WITH ENOUGH TO CONVINCE THEM THAT DONALD TRUMP PLAYED A ROLE IN ALL THIS, KNOWINGLY PLAYED A ROLE IN ALL OF THIS, WITH