After saying repeatedly he wanted to testify. Trump did, however, stop for the cameras before going into Court Earlier today. And here is what he said. Were resting the case. I wont be resting. I dont rest. I like to rest sometimes, but i dont get to rest. He wont be resting. The main witness, the defense did call, was Robert Costello. And he was back on the stand trying to undercut Michael Cohens testimony earlier today, a day after being admonished and warned by the judge that his behavior was contemptuous. Even though testimony in this case appears to be over, a huge decision is now looming. Will jurors be allowed to consider lesser charges, misdemeanors against the former president . Or will Felony Charges be their only option . The Charging Conference that will decide that question and potentially go a long way toward deciding how this case ends is just one hour away. I want to bring in msnbc Legal Correspondent lisa rubin remaining outside the courthouse with us in studio, Chuck Rosenberg and Catherine Christian. So, lisa, lets start with the Charging Conference. How exactly does it work and what is the significance . Well, catherine and chuck, as experienced prosecutors, know this better than i do. But when we come to this Charging Conference this afternoon, it is like an Oral Argument on Jury Instructions is how would i explain it to viewers. They have prepared Draft Instructions that are already with judge merchan. I should note theyre not publicly available yet. And then theyll essentially have argument on those things about which there are no agreement and the judge will hear from both sides as to whether or why he should instruct jurors a particular way. One thing that i expect to be an issue this afternoon has to do with a particular phrase in the statute at issue. I should note there is only really one crime that is being charged here 34 times. It is new york penal law 175. 10 and it says simply this, a person is guilty of falsifying Business Records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying Business Records in the second degree, meaning falsifying Business Records and this is what makes it a felony, when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal in the commission thereof. The question is goes to the question of what it means to falsify Business Records. If you are the person who is actually doing the falsification, of course you can be found guilty. But another theory on which a person can be held criminally liable is that you cause somebody else to falsify business documents and that, of course, begets the question of what does it mean to cause another person to falsify a Business Record . Thats a particularly important question here in this case where donald trump didnt create any of the Business Records that are at issue. Youll remember there are 11 invoices created and signed by Michael Cohen, there are checks and check stubs and while they were nine of them were signed by donald trump, they were created by employees of the trump organization. And then finally you got entries in the general business ledger, again, created by employees of the trump organization, pursuant to instructions that they received either from jeff mcconney, Allen Weisselberg, or both. So, the prosecution has to prove that trump caused these Business Records to be made. There is some Case Precedent in new york that says if you take a particular course of action and it is reasonably foreseeable to you that that course of action could cause somebody else to make false Business Records, you can be held criminally liable. But, of course, the defendant is going to want something a lot more stringent than that, something that is more akin to you actually directed it, you told somebody to do it, and thats the kind of evidence that is in short supply in this case, which is why the meaning of the word cause could be one of the most important issues in dermg determining the outcome of this trial. Got to get your semantics down in the world of law. Andrea mitchell joins us, thank you for getting back so quickly from the courthouse t was quite an experience to be there today of all days. Tell us all about it. It was an experience to be there, to see the courthouse, to see donald trump, to see donald trump in a completely different way than any of us have personally viewed him before. The former president of the United States, you know, in this unprecedented moment, walking into a courtroom in new york city. Ive covered the courts in philadelphia as a cub reporter for ten years and, you know, ive covered other courts over the years, other trials, but never before anything this momentous and you have to wonder how are these jurors going to assess exactly what lisa rubin was talking about . When does a misdemeanor become a felony . This is an unusual case. And are they all the evidence that donald trump was such a controlling figure, that Allen Weisselberg would not have made these documents, and donald trump would not have spent the money, you know, all this money on Michael Cohen, and, you know, pay him more to pay for, you know, all these other expenses, and to make it worth his while, but none of this would have happened if he had not wanted it. So, theyre going to have to make a decision in that jury room and when they begin the deliberations a week from now. Imagine how insane it must feel to have the responsibility of potentially finding guilty or exonerating a former president of the United States, not just anyone, donald trump who is such a vitriolic figure. And, you know, the fact that he surrounds himself with these figures. Theyre sort of Minor Back Benchers from the republican house, and one was the former acting Attorney General, matt whitaker. I met him in the Department Of Justice when he replaced jeff sessions, big man from iowa, football player, not a distinguished Attorney General, but he has the title of former acting Attorney General of the United States. It shows you the contrast between the Prior Administration and what they are projecting, their view of law, the law, don jr. There who came out and called this case a creation of the bolshevik press. It is all of that is on the weight of the jurors. All of us have sat on juries. I have not. I was dismissed. I was dismissed twice. Ive been on a jury, and you feel a huge responsibility. One jury i was on was really up to me as it came down to it and i just helped decide a case, contrary to everything i believed because i thought there was reasonable doubt and you just carry that responsibility the way many of us carry that responsibility, you and i have been White House Correspondents, you walk through the gates, you feel the responsibility of representing the American People inside that building and communicating to the public. So, people take their, as chuck said and catherine, people take their Civic Responsibility very seriously and that can work both ways in this case. Hes a former president of the United States. Take us into that courtroom, because every Single Person who has reported on the jury has said they are not giving away anything. Nothing. Nothing. And you know that i said this yesterday, maybe you felt it too, that when they said i thought im ready for this, ive been covering this since the first day and many months before that, when they said the people of the state of new york versus donald j. Trump will now come to order, there was something w ordinary americans, ordinary new yorkers, chosen out of potentially thousands of people who could have been called in, are going to have to make this decision. And in this case, and as chuck and catherine can bear me out, they can make a decision on some of the charge and bump it down to a misdemeanor. Is that not the case . Only if the judge instructs them on that. And so thats another reason why the judge was indicating today that the instructions are very, very important. And thats what theyre going to be doing at 2 15. There is this very unusual and he said to them, this is unusual. This long lag time, but that he thought it was best not to have a gap between the summations, which are so important, which are going to come on tuesday, and then the jurors, the judges charge which will likely be wednesday and will go to the jury on wednesday a week from now. So, you know, you just think about it, chuck, pick it up there, because and to your very good point, andrea, and as catherine noted, some of this turns on how the judge instructs the jury and we will see that soon. So why does everyone say a case could literally turn a Jury Instruction i just googled Jury Instructions and several cases came up, where after the fact jurors said i voted this way because the judge said this. Even though i thought maybe it was something else. From being in there, they were listening to the judge. They were just gripped by that. I think especially after they saw his displeasure with Robert Costello yesterday before he excused them, it was building to that, you know, really legally that was almost an explosion afterwards when the jurors left, i think they really have trust and faith in this judge as many judges, but in this case, you got a choice between discredited, convicted, you know, Michael Cohen, perjurer, on the stand, and Robert Costello, who definitely did not come from the higher echelons of jurisprudence, and on The Other Side, you know, you got donald trump who is controversial and then you got this judge merchan who, chuck, to answer that question, he seems to be the grownup in the room. Jurors dont miss the fact that the judge is sitting up on a bench, a little bit higher than everyone else, and you stand when he or she walks into the room and you stand when he or she walks out of the room and that people address the judge as your honor, it is clear, andrea, who is in charge. I dont think any juror, any jury, in any jurisdiction, misses that. And, by the way, it is also the judge who tells them when they can go to lunch, so, you know, think theyre also grateful for that. Does he do the instructions any different because hes a former president . No, not at all. To your other question, how do Jury Instructions help perhaps determine the outcome of the case . It is something that catherine alluded to. If the judge gives the jurors an option to find mr. Trump guilty of misdemeanors, then perhaps they find him guilty of a misdemeanor and not a felony. Vice versa, if he takes that option off the table, it is either a felony or nothing. There are all different combinations of verdicts. You can be guilty on some charges, and not guilty on others. You could have a partial verdict, they return decisions on some counts, and hang on others. You could acquit. You can convict. And so a lot of this, not all of it, but a lot of it will turn as catherine said on precisely how the judge instructs the jury. A lot of it is so unpredictable, though. We have looked at the jury and try to figure out who might be thinking what, you do a version of profiling in your head, what does this person look like, where have i encountered a person like this before and what have they told me . I think thats futile. I know it is futile. You said it is futile to me, a number of times. I heard again somebody saying that the jury was very much on the side of Michael Cohen and i thought of you. Yeah, you can never tell. I always said i convince myself that one juror was looking at me in a certain way and hated me. What will happen, depending how long they deliberate, youll see a note come out, and then youre, like, theyre focused on that, and then youre, like, oh, thats a good thing, theyre focused on that. If theyre deliberating and a note comes out for a particular question, we might get a sense. That could be one juror wants to have a question asked. Usually a sense of where it is going depending on the length of a deliberation, a shorter deliberation in our experience has delivered a guilty verdict in the past court cases we followed. O. J. Simpson was very quick and it was an acquittal. It is very hard to determine. Do they have a relationship now . There is something about being in the trenches with someone. Yeah. And they have been having lunch together. And nobody else can understand what theyre going through. It is not surprising to me that andrea was the person on her jury who everybody turned to. Come on, it is Andrea Mitchell. But it was a womans case. And it was very heavily i dont want to get if were in a jury room, were going to listen to what andrea has to say, having said that, ive often heard it is the jury foreman who generally is the most influential. Is that true and have relationships developed by now that might disprove that . Well, you have to understand one thing. They are prohibited from talking about the case at this point. But they give a sense of each other. Unless theyre sitting in object silence, theyre talking to each other about everything but the case. And do relationships form . Sure. Theyre casual and theyre congenial and people talk about where they live and where they grew up and family and college and things like that or whatever strikes them, you know, the knicks losing in the playoffs to the pacers. Oh, knife to the heart, chuck. How does the foreman get chosen . In new york, it is the first person. It is just juror number one. It is automatic. Often theyre like, me . That person is the one who sends out the notes, thats the person who announces the verdict. I imagine that it depends on the type of lawyer. The lawyers who are milquetoast, lawyers taking over because im a lawyer. Others may be offended by that because theyre all supposed to be equal. It is unclear. Im with catherine. I think it is hazardous to ascribe certain traits to certain people based on what they do for a living or what they look like during trial, whether theyre attentive or inattentive. I might have my eyes closed and be listening to everything. Someone else might be taking notes that turn out just to be scribbles and doodles. Some people do sketches, like, court sketches while sitting here at this desk. It is impossible to figure out are you calling me out . Me . No, i want to go to lisa rubin, im told youve been nodding as were having this conversation about the jury. Reporter yeah, i was thinking about it, an experience i had with a jury not so long ago myself. I was on a criminal case, chris, in 2017 and 2018, where one of the jurors was reading a book during every break and every side bar that is called the subtle art of not giving a f word. And i have to tell you, on our side, the defense side, we were mesmerized by this book, which the juror ostentatiously displayed like this during every break, trying to determine what is what signal is this juror trying to send to us . And the answer was no signal at all. It was a book that happened to be interesting to him or her. The jury convicted my client. I was also thinking about the e. Jean carroll jury and the most recent case, when Robbie Kaplan who is e. Jean carrolls lead lawyer was summing up her case, there were a number of jurors who wouldnt look at her and almost staring down the barrel of the courtroom rather than give her their attention. And i remember thinking to myself, this is a bad sign, theyre not engaged with her, not engaged with the case. When alina habba came up by comparison, the entire jury was wrapped. They couldnt take their eyes off of her. And yet none of that had anything to do with the ultimate verdict in that case, which was to find that e. Jean carroll was entitled to 8. 3 million as i recall. So, i agree with chuck and catherine, trying to read Juror Behavior is an exercise in total futility that doesnt mean that lawyers dont do it, particularly because it is a Stress Release during trials like this. But trying to understand what these jurors are thinking is just useless for all of us as curious as we all are about what they must be thinking right now. Im just wondering also to you members of the bar here, how realistic is it to assume when judge merchan says dont discuss it and well be back next week, theyll go through wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday, monday, memorial day and never talking about this case, to children, partners, spouses . Thats impossible. Do you want to talk about the four hours of coverage we did . Yes. I stopped talking about it. I stopped talking about it. You cant talk to anyone else outside your sphere, but youre not supposed to talk to your family. Chuck, is it realistic to think theyll go through all memorial day and not talk to a husband, wife, partner . This is a great question about human nature and a great question about this particular jury. Some people will strictly abide by the judges decisions. Other