Trump jury requests on trial transcript and instructions offer clues on deliberations

LIVE UPDATES: Jury reaches verdict in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial

NEW YORK ? Requests from the jury in former President Donald Trump's hush money trial to hear specific portions of the trial transcript and their instructions from the judge Thursday offer clues about their ongoing deliberations.

Judge Juan Merchan said jurors wanted to hear a description of how they should consider evidence and what inferences may be drawn from it, as well as instructions on New York law. A note from jurors specifically mentioned an example the judge described about inferring it's raining when people are wearing rain gear and using umbrellas.

Jurors also want a headphone jack to listen to recordings. Merchan said headphones or a speaker could be provided.

Merchan read pages six through 35 of the jury instructions. You can read the instructions here:

Trial transcript: What did jurors ask to review?

Jurors asked to listen to these four portions of the trial transcript read aloud:

• Testimony from David Pecker, the former head of the parent company for the National Enquirer tabloid, about a phone conversation with Trump while Pecker was in an investor meeting;

• Pecker's testimony regarding the decision not to finalize and fund the assignment of former Playboy model Karen McDougal's life rights;

• Pecker's testimony regarding a Trump Tower meeting he said he had with Trump and former Trump attorney Michael Cohen in August of 2015; and

• Cohen's testimony regarding that same Trump Tower meeting.

What are these transcript sections about?

David Pecker testified during Trump's historic hush money trial trial that he agreed in an August 2015 meeting with Trump and Cohen to be "the eyes and ears" when it came to catching stories from women that threatened to get out and hurt Trump's presidential campaign. Pecker said he agreed to notify Cohen, at which point Cohen and Trump would be responsible for buying the stories or otherwise killing them.

Pecker also said that, during a call he had with Trump during an investor meeting, he recommended buying McDougal's story of an affair with Trump. Pecker testified that he believed her story was true.

Pecker also told jurors that, after having a conversation with a lawyer, he told Cohen he didn't want to get paid back or sell the rights to McDougal's story, which the media company that Pecker ran had purchased.

What are jurors discussing?

Jury deliberations are private. But the jurors' request to listen to portions of the trial transcript offers some clues about what they may be discussing.

Prosecutors charged Trump with felonies based on the theory that Trump falsified records to cover up a conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election. The August 2015 meeting is a core moment when prosecutors say that conspiracy took shape. Jurors' interest in that meeting could mean they are discussing whether there was such a conspiracy.

One of the prosecution's theories for how co-conspirators tried to unlawfully influence the election is by violating federal campaign finance laws through a $130,000 hush money payment from Cohen to porn star Stormy Daniels.

The McDougal hush money deal is totally separate, but the prosecution argued it's important context for understanding the wider alleged conspiracy. Jurors' interest in Pecker's testimony on that deal and his recommendation to Trump could mean they are looking at the degree of evidence supporting Trump's participation in a conspiracy.

When Pecker testified that he didn't want to sell the McDougal story to Trump or Cohen after talking with a lawyer, he seemed to suggest he had legal concerns about it. Jurors could be considering this testimony to gauge whether Trump would have known that Cohen's hush money payment to Daniels was illegal. That would be relevant to whether Trump falsified records concerning his alleged reimbursement to Cohen in to cover up a separate crime.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump jury request to rehear trial testimony offers deliberation clues