In the wake of salacious evidence from adult film actor Stormy Daniels, prosecutors in Donald Trump’s hush money trial narrowed their focus to cheques and phone records as they laid the groundwork for jurors to hear from the star witness: Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer.

As the third week of evidence drew to a close, the case that ultimately hinges on record-keeping returned to deeply technical evidence – a sharp contrast from Ms Daniels’ dramatic, if not downright seamy, account of an alleged sexual encounter with Trump that riveted jurors earlier this week.

The former US president denies they ever had sex.

The prosecution could rest its case by the end of next week, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said.

Prosecutors have been building up their case ahead of crucial evidence from Mr Cohen, Trump’s one-time fixer-turned-foe who arranged the $130,000 payout to Ms Daniels – he says at Trump’s direction.

Mr Cohen is expected to enter the witness box on Monday, two people familiar with the matter told The Associated Press.

Defence lawyers will argue that the disbarred lawyer who served prison time and has become one of Trump’s fiercest critics is out to get the former president and cannot be believed.

Jurors on Friday saw social media posts showing that Trump initially praised Mr Cohen after the then-lawyer came under federal investigation.

Trump started bashing him after Mr Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations, along with other crimes, and claimed Trump directed him to arrange the payment for Ms Daniels.

Trump was never charged with any crime related to that federal investigation.

Trump, who was visibly angry during much of Ms Daniels’ evidence, chatted frequently with his lawyers and read through a stack of papers on the table in front of him as jurors heard from witnesses including AT&T and Verizon workers, who authenticated phone records.

Friday’s dry evidence appeared to test jurors’ patience at times.

One juror stifled a yawn while another stretched out his arm, and others shifted their gaze around the room or stared up at the ceiling.

In one of the livelier moments, Trump lawyer Emil Bove asked a paralegal about the “tedious” work of going through lengthy phone, data and other records and preparing charts from them.

“Actually, I kind of enjoyed it,” the paralegal said matter-of-factly, to chuckles from the courtroom audience.

“Respect,” Mr Bove replied.

Witnesses in the case have see-sawed between bookkeepers and bankers with evidence about records and finances, to Ms Daniels and others with unflattering stories about Trump and the tabloid world machinations meant to keep them secret.

Despite all the drama, in the end, the trial is about money changing hands – business transactions – and whether those payments were made to illegally influence the 2016 election.

Ms Daniels’ story of an alleged sexual encounter with Trump was a crucial building block for prosecutors, who are seeking to show that the Republican and his allies buried unflattering stories in the waning weeks of the 2016 presidential election in an effort to illegally influence the race.

Trump walked out of the court in a rage on Thursday, angrily telling reporters: “I’m innocent.”

His lawyers pushed for a mistrial over the level of tawdry details Ms Daniels went into in the witness box, but Judge Juan M Merchan denied the request.

Back in the witness box on Friday morning was Madeleine Westerhout, a former Trump White House aide.

Prosecutors used Ms Westerhout’s evidence to detail the process by which Trump got personal mail – including cheques to sign – while in the White House.

It is relevant because that is how he received and signed the cheques that reimbursed Mr Cohen for the payment to Ms Daniels, prosecutors say.

Ms Westerhout said that Trump was “very upset” when The Wall Street Journal published a 2018 story about the hush money deal with Ms Daniels.

“My understanding was that he knew it would be hurtful to his family,” Ms Westerhout said, though she acknowledged she did not recall him saying so specifically.

The answer, elicited by Trump lawyer Susan Necheles, goes to the defence’s argument that Ms Daniels was paid to stay silent in order to protect Trump’s family, not his campaign.

Over more than seven-and-a-half hours of evidence, Ms Daniels relayed in graphic detail what she says happened after the two met at a celebrity golf outing at Lake Tahoe where sponsors included the adult film studio where she worked.

Ms Daniels explained how she felt surprise, fear and discomfort, even as she consented to sex with Trump.

During combative cross-examination, Trump’s lawyers sought to paint Ms Daniels as a liar and extortionist who is trying to take down the former president after drawing money and fame from her claims.

Ms Necheles pressed Ms Daniels on why she accepted the payout to keep quiet instead of going public, and the two women traded barbs over what Ms Necheles said were inconsistencies in Ms Daniels’ story over the years.

“You made all this up, right?” Ms Necheles asked Ms Daniels.

“No,” Ms Daniels shot back.

After Ms Daniels stepped down from the witness box on Thursday, Trump’s lawyers pressed the judge to amend the gag order that prevents him from talking about witnesses in the case so he could publicly respond to what she told jurors.

The judge denied that request too.

Trump on Friday also lost a bid to get records from Mark Pomerantz, a former Manhattan prosecutor who authored a book last year detailing tensions with district attorney Alvin Bragg over whether to seek Trump’s indictment.

Prosecutors in Mr Bragg’s office asked Judge Merchan to reject the subpoena of Mr Pomerantz, and the judge agreed, writing in an order that the defence requests are either overly broad and part of a “fishing expedition” or they seek information that is irrelevant to the case.

Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying internal Trump Organisation business records.

The charges stem from paperwork such as invoices and cheques that were deemed legal expenses in company records.

Prosecutors say those payments largely were reimbursements to Mr Cohen for Ms Daniels’ hush money payment.

This criminal case could be the only one of four against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to go to trial before voters decide in November whether to send him back to the White House.

Trump has pleaded not guilty and casts himself as the victim of a politically tainted justice system working to deny him another term.

Meanwhile, as the threat of jail looms over Trump following repeated gag order violations, his lawyers are fighting the judge’s order and seeking a fast decision in an appeals court.

If that court refuses to lift the gag order, Trump’s lawyers want permission to take their appeal to the state’s high court.