For a trial that lasted 7+ weeks that is neither long nor short. A quick verdict (less than 9' 12") is almost always not guilty. This jury has gotten right to work, asking for testimony readbacks and re-instruction by the judge on the first day, yesterday. Today they received those refreshers. They have keyed in on the most pertinent testimony, that of David Pecker and Michael Cohen. They have done so no doubt in obedience to the instruction that told them they cannot base their verdict alone on the testimony of a co-conspirator, Cohen, without it being corroborated. They are seeing if Pecker corroborated Cohen. He did.
The jury did not request re-instruction on the "complex", "layered" charges. They are too smart to elide over that and there are two lawyers for good measure on the jury. They will not neglect to examine if the evidence proves each and every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. I would expect that they will request re-instruction on the charges when they are ready, e.g. what "unlawful means" is and if it is distinct from "crimes", and I expect them to get bogged down there. If they ask to hear the reasonable doubt instruction again, an unusually long three-pages, that is almost always a sign of an impending acquittal. In this case I am not sure if that signal blinks.
