Proof the Judge with his instructions seems to be as honorable, fair, and as respectful of the process as can be, given the enormous interest in, and the sure to follow political, societal, constitutional repercussions coming from any Jury verdict.
A few experts of observations from withing the courtroom (source: NYT):
The judge greets the jurors and immediately begins reading them his instructions. He tells them the instructions will take at least an hour to get through.
Justice Merchan, who’s normally very soft-spoken, is now explaining to the jurors that any changes in his inflection are not intended to send a message.
Justice Merchan tells the jurors that it is not his responsibility to judge the evidence in the case. “It is yours,” he says. “You are the judges of the facts, and you are responsible for deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.”
As the judge reads standard legal language on fairness to the jurors, he happens upon an interesting phrase: “As a juror, you are asked to make a very important decision about another member of the community.” It’s unusual to think about Trump as just “another member of the community.” But in court, that’s how jurors are meant to view him. But, as requested by the defense during a charge conference last week in which these instructions were hashed out, Merchan also reminds these jurors not to allow previously held opinions about the defendant to affect their decisions. This remark underscores the tension of this case and the task facing jurors
IMAGE
Justice Merchan reminds the jurors they need to “set aside” personal opinions or bias against Trump.
Justice Merchan is saying that jurors can draw inferences while evaluating the evidence during deliberations. To explain the concept of an inference, he uses the example of a wet, rainy sidewalk in the morning. While one may not have seen it rain, Merchan says, one can infer that there was a storm or shower at some point overnight.
Justice Merchan reminds jurors that they cannot hold Trump’s choice not to testify against him as they deliberate.
The judge is explaining the concept of reasonable doubt, using standard legal language. He tells them, “It is an actual doubt, not an imaginary doubt. It is 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 the lack of convincing evidence.”
Conversely, he explains, “proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you so firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt that you have no reasonable doubt of the existence of any element of the crime, or of the defendant’s identity as the person who committed the crime.”
Justice Merchan explains the concept of “falsus in uno,” an important concept for the defense, which tried to convince the jury that Michael Cohen’s testimony was not credible. The concept says that jurors can disregard a witness’s entire testimony if they find he has intentionally testified falsely to any material fact. Or, they can disregard the parts they find to be untruthful, and accept those they find truthful and accurate.
The language on credibility is also worth paying close attention to. Justice Merchan says that there’s no formula for evaluating someone’s truthfulness, and that a person brings to the process all their varied experiences. “In life,” he says, “you frequently decide the truthfulness and accuracy of statements made to you by other people.” He tells the jurors to use the same factors they draw on outside of court when evaluating testimony in the case.
Justice Merchan explains that the law considers Michael Cohen an accomplice “because there is evidence that he participated in a crime based upon conduct involved in the allegations here against the defendant.”
He tells the jurors that “even if you find the testimony of Michael Cohen to be believable, you may not convict the defendant solely upon that testimony, unless you also find that it was corroborated by other evidence” connecting Trump with the crime.
This helps to explain much of what we saw in closing arguments yesterday: The defense’s focus on Cohen’s credibility and the prosecution’s insistence that his testimony is just one central strand in the broader tapestry of evidence against Trump.
www.documentcloud.org
www.businessinsider.com
Great post! 
