Judge Merchan Denies Trump’s Motion for a Mistrial After Stormy Daniels’ Testimony
As The Washington Post noted, “In a case about bank records, the jury is hearing a lot about sex.”
Stormy Daniels finished her testimony at former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial.
Speaking of which…we don’t even know for sure the crimes Trump allegedly committed: “Bragg has refused to clearly define the crime that Trump was seeking to conceal when payments for a non-disclosure agreement were listed as a legal expense.”
Trump’s team renewed its motion for a mistrial based on the testimony. Merchan denied them again.
His justification? The defense denied the alleged affair ever happened, thus opening the door.
Merchan also repeated his reasons from Tuesday, including that the defense didn’t object. He also admitted that parts of Daniels’ testimony shouldn’t have been said, but again…the defense should have objected.
Merchan also said that the way “Stormy Daniels perceived the event lends Daniels a layer of ‘credibility if the juror chooses to believe them.'”
The alleged affair has nothing to do with whatever supposed crime Trump committed! My goodness.
I do wonder why Trump’s lawyers didn’t object. That boggles my mind a little. They should have objected every time the prosecution asked Daniels a question.
So what happened on Tuesday and Wednesday? Let’s dissect!
We saw people on CNN and MSNBC criticize Daniels’ testimony, which should never have been allowed.
She came off as an opportunistic, snotty lady, primarily responding with sarcasm, enjoying the spotlight she obviously craves.
Merchan allowed Stormy to go in-depth about this alleged affair, but she couldn’t provide “details of genitalia.”
The alleged affair has nothing to do with the case.
In fact, the alleged affair has nothing to do with the trial. As The Washington Post noted, “In a case about bank records, the jury is hearing a lot about sex.”
No wonder Daniels’ testimony consisted of only sex. She told Trump’s lawyer, Susan Necheles, that she didn’t know directly about Trump’s involvement in the $130,000 payment to her.
On Tuesday, Daniels admitted she wanted to make money by getting her story out. She also admitted she hates Trump, wants to hold him accountable, and won’t pay the $293,000 legal fees awarded to Trump after her defamation case against him ended up dismissed.
Trump’s team asked for a mistrial, which Judge Merchan denied.
Then Merchan had the nerve to say, “I agree that it would have been better if some of these things had been left unsaid.”
Gee, maybe limit the scope of testimonies?
On Thursday, Necheles pressed Daniels about the agreement she signed that denied the affair.
Daniels admitted she received almost $1,000,000 to tell her story about the alleged affair.
But when Necheles asked Daniels if she wanted to say out loud that she had sex with Trump, she said, “No, no one would ever want to publicly say that.”
Oh, Daniels also confirmed she can speak to dead people.
The alleged affair is now non-consensual, according to Daniels on Tuesday. Yeah, that all of a sudden changed. Then it changed again on Thursday:
While some of the details Daniels offered Tuesday when prosecutors were questioning her sounded at times like nonconsensual sex between the two, Daniels said Thursday that Trump did not force himself on her.
“He did not put his hands on me, he did not give me any sort of drugs or alcohol, and he did not hold me, threaten me,” she said. “My own insecurities in that moment kept me from saying no.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Soon, the Democrats will be allowing spirit testimony against their enemies.
Well, they did allow brain dead E. Jean Carroll to testify to events she couldn’t actually remember…
When it comes to 🍊 Orange Man Bad, everything by plaintiff/prosecution is allowed and…well 🍊 Orange Man Bad.
Just like in the Salem Witch Trials.
Merchan only limits what defense witnesses can say.
There you go. Noticing Things.
She’s actually being disparaged for not being that far from a typical woman.
So, you are saying that the typical American woman is a porn star and a whore? Do you include the women editors here at Legal Insurrection?
Eric Berne’s Games People Play is a classic, one game being Rap-o, ” come hither / get away from me you beast.” It’s common enough to have its own category. At a party it was recommended that you abandon “Yes, but” women and search out a rap-o game.
Rap-o was years before MeToo monetized it.
” come hither / get away from me you beast.”
In my day such women were call p****-teases.
Well, that was weird… but then it’s JR….
She’s a trollop, a dumpster, the town bicycle that virtually everyone rode, many at the same time. Don’t you defend her. She’s not worthy of defense. You are one sick perverted chump. No wonder you like diddling kids.
I think the question is what’s wrong with you, given you project on every post you might want to reconsider the things you accuse people of
OK. I get it. You defend perverts, too.
Birds of a feather.
Did they have sex on top of the bank records?
…on top of the bank records, with the general ledger and in the library!
…and Colonel Mustard’s body in the big wing chair, and all of the doors and windows locked.
How does anyone expect a woman who has experienced thousands of men on screen to remember one set of genitalia?
I suppose it all depends on how unusual. Several of Michael Jackson’s accusers described something quite Appaloosan.
Appaloosan?
Color me surprised that little kids know their horse breeds so well.
They didn’t use the term, I just summarized their testimony.
I recall one woman giving a rather, um, twisted description of Bill Clinton’s family tackle.
I’d forgotten that.
She wasn’t a porn star
Well, maybe she remembers Trump’s little penis, because it was so small. That would leave an impression on a porn star who is used to large penises.
Well, since she didn’t, it isn’t.
I guess you had lots of fun looking at Trump’s wanker. What a sick pervert you are.
From the look at Hunter Bidens Penis brigade this is some immense projection
You like that Hunter dick, huh?
Do you date swim suit models now?
Aren’t you the former mayor of your village who had to resign because you harassed full-figured councilwomen?
Who knew that Junior is actually a closet dick-measurer?
Sounds like you know more about Trump’s dick than Stormy does.
JR, be careful. The old saw is… open mouth, insert …
Stormy is accustomed to fists.
Waving a stick in a cave is not evidence of anything.
I am sooooooo stealing this!
Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) was seated in the front row of the courtroom in New York City today and in this video, he shows his support for President Trump.
https://youtu.be/tabN7ngBKUg?si=VeodgQ6oolnoFJLd
Will the left ever run out of unhinged broads to testify whenever they feel the need to bring down a republican?
Not until the money or PMSNBC/CNN interviews run out.
Nope, it’s damn near a majority of their constituency
[I] do wonder why Trump’s lawyers didn’t object. That boggles my mind a little. They should have objected every time the prosecution asked Daniels a question.
they did object to Stormy even testifying which Merchan overruled, and reportedly at a sidebar, the judge complained that the defense did not object more, however, tactic was done to allow her prejudicial and irrelevant testimony in which can be appealed as reversible error by Merchan
Trump’s lawyers did object before Daniels testified. The judge allowed it because of “credibility issues”.
When her testimony went off the rails, Trump’s defense stood out of the way and let the prejudicial testimony be heard in order to get a mistrial.
They should have gotten the mistrial. But the judge denied it because he said the defense didn’t object.
When he overruled their objections prior.
He realized his mistake but he blames the lawyers so he can deny a mistrial.
A defence not objecting in order to try and get a mistrial is a clear case of bad faith. It’s not a gold case for a mistrial is it, it’s not the courts fault that Trumps lawyers did badly
Has anyone been keeping a running tally of the kangaroos seen inside the courtroom?
It’s a damn shame Republicans have a habit of picking limp-wristed girly-men to represent their interests. If we were like Dems who have spent decades choosing throat-slitting assassins as elected representatives and local & state executive officials, every member of the Biden Crime Syndicate would have already been indicted starting with ‘Dr.’ Biden. Instead, our guys are just going to sit around clutching their pearls while they do media spots lamenting how unconstitutional this lawfare is.
Hilariously enough, a group of kangaroos is called a mob.
I do wonder why Trump’s lawyers didn’t object. That boggles my mind a little. They should have objected every time the prosecution asked Daniels a question.
I don’t think repeated objections would make a difference, and might come across as desperation on the part of the defense.
Besides: it seems that this testimony may have had the effect of turning the stomachs of some who otherwise would leap at any opportunity to hate Trump, no matter how flimsy the evidence. The jury is probably a lost cause – no way the DA or judge would allow anyone on the jury who was not ready to lynch Trump – but outside NY it may be a different story. The Stalin show trial aspect of this cannot be disguised by the Joseph Goebbels media.
Not really, it would guide the witness of what’s acceptable. It would to some extent control the witness for the next time. Instead she was let loose on every detail and secondly it means that the mistral argument has no legs. If the lawyers let her speak why on earth would anyone take the defences case seriously when they did nothing.
If it seems that the IS a juror who is not willing to convict, you can be sure that Judge Merchan will order a “directed verdict”. Remember, the rule of law has no applicability in this courtroom.
Subotai Bahadur
A judge can only direct an acquittal, not a conviction.
Well, I always believed the Book of Revelation was an allegory. Now, I’m not so sure. The Whore of Babylon just spoke in court for two days. Unbelievable.
Judges can order all they want. They can’t force a guilty verdict.
New York? They don’t have to force anything
Force? Perhaps not. Guarantee a specific verdict? It depends how crooked the judge wants to be. Merchan has demonstrated he will be as crooked as it takes.
Judges can effectively pick the jurors if he tailors voir dire in an unethical way….which Merchan did. He allowed questions to be asked (or disallowed questions to be asked) during voir dire that would all but guarantee anyone predisposed to find favorably for Trump would be excluded from the jury. Then, all he has to do is allow incredibly prejudicial testimony to be admitted in front of the jury and the conviction becomes a foregone conclusion.
Well they’re having a trial without detailing the statutes violated, so why would you conclude the judge cannot force a guilty verdict?
all those jurors know the repercussions of letting Trump walk. There friends, family, colleagues and associates all know what they are doing and the blowback they would receive is on their minds,..besides if Trump walks, those jurors won’t het to appear on all those Morning shows and miss out on book deals
Don’t forget the Netflix, Hulu and other pay service movies.
I am pretty forlorn that media has devolved into taunting someone as having “A small dick”.
This is not progress.
Looks like we imported boatloads of kangaroos.
Maybe Joe is going to be the first US President to release a sex tape to show his super virility and exceptional length, girth and firmness over that floppy pony soldier punk Trump.
I hate to say this but from a tactical position, Trump should have put his daughter and wife in that court room during her testamoney.
I guess if I were on the jury I would be thinking “why am I hearing this, I thought we were here for a bookkeeping thing”
they are hearing this because there is no book keeping thing,…Imagine the audacity of recording a payment to a lawyer as a “legal expense”
What I don’t understand is even if paying Cohen as a cutout for Daniels to effectively hide the payment to Daniels is proven, that’s still not a crime because both are still legitimate business expenses. Companies pay settlements in all kinds of claims (sexual harassment, defamation, etc) against executives/company officers ALL THE TIME. NBC famously paid tens-of-millions to women who claimed abuse by Matt Lauer. Those payments were certainly deducted in the same way ANY regular business expense is deducted.
The only way this could be remotely criminal is if the expense itself was something that could not be paid by the company….like an illegal purchase of cocaine or meth.
As I understand it (from press reports) Bragg’s “theory of the case” is that the NDA was designed solely to hide the facts from the voters, and thus constituted a contribution from Trump to Trump’s campaign which should have been reported as a campaign contribution (either in cash or in kind) instead of a personal legal expense.
If I recall, Candidate Trump was not concerned about voters finding out, but rather that Melania might hear of it and credit Stormy’s story. Remember that to this day Trump denies having sex with Stormy.
I tend to believe him. He is a notorious germophobe, and to believe he would have sex with a porn actress — unprotected sex according to her — stretches credulity.
Stormy is a “spicy” accountant.
I would love to know what the success rate is when it comes to mistrial requests in court cases. I would venture guess well under 1%
Mary Chastain: Speaking of which…we don’t even know for sure the crimes Trump allegedly committed
The felony is under New York Law § 175-10, which makes the falsification (New York Executive Law § 63-12) a felony when the intent is commit or conceal another crime (New York Law § 17-152).
Mary Chastain: His justification? The defense denied the alleged affair ever happened, thus opening the door.
The defense opened the door during their opening statement; so, yes, it’s a valid legal justification. If that wasn’t the rule, then the defense—or prosecutor—could make uncontestable claims.
Mary Chastain: The alleged affair has nothing to do with whatever supposed crime Trump committed!
The defense made it an issue. Once allowing the testimony, it is the duty of the defense to object to specific questions or answers during the testimony. The alleged sexual encounter is at the center of the alleged hush money scheme. Trump could have argued the truth of the sexual encounter is immaterial, but that’s not what he did. Trump’s crack legal team denied it occurred, so it became an issue.
Mary Chastain: But when Necheles asked Daniels if she wanted to say out loud that she had sex with Trump, she said, “No, no one would ever want to publicly say that.”
Heh.
MarkS: tactic was done to allow her prejudicial and irrelevant testimony in which can be appealed as reversible error by Merchan
A party can’t have the benefit of waiting for the answer to a question without objection, then objecting to the question when they don’t like the answer.
Recovering Lutheran: I don’t think repeated objections would make a difference, and might come across as desperation on the part of the defense.
Quite possibly. But that’s a strategic decision they are stuck with.
GeorgeS: Trump’s lawyers did object before Daniels testified. The judge allowed it because of “credibility issues”.
The defense raised the issue of whether a sexual encounter occurred. That puts Daniels on the stand. Objections can still be raised to specific questions. However, allowing Daniels to testify to details of the encounter affords the jury an opportunity to decide whether Daniels’ telling of the encounter is credible.
GeorgeS: When her testimony went off the rails, Trump’s defense stood out of the way and let the prejudicial testimony be heard in order to get a mistrial.
As a general rule, a party can’t not object to certain questions then ask for a mistrial. They can ask the judge to instruct the jury to disregard certain answers, though.
buck61: I would love to know what the success rate is when it comes to mistrial requests in court cases. I would venture guess well under 1%
“A sampling of court cases by the National Center for State Courts found that of the cases that went to trial, 6 percent ended in hung juries and 4 percent were declared mistrials for other reasons.”
Whether the sex act actually happened or not is irrelevant to this case.
The factual question is whether the NDA happened (I think all agreed that it did, whether at Trump’s behest or on Cohen’s initiative) and what was the intent (to hide the allegation from the voters in order to influence the vote, or to hide the allegation from Melania). In order to be a campaign contribution, as I understand it the sole intent would have to be to influence the election, not to keep peace in Trump’s household. If there was a mixed motive, it would not be campaign contribution.
Pepsi_Freak: Whether the sex act actually happened or not is irrelevant to this case.
It was the defense that made it an issue by introducing it in their opening statement. It plays to Trump’s motive.
Pepsi_Freak: If there was a mixed motive, it would not be campaign contribution.
The legal standard the jury will have to decide is whether the payment would have been made absent the campaign purpose, not where there was a secondary motive. The closeness to the election and other evidence would tend to support the payment would not have been made otherwise.
Lot of cope in this article
Lot of dope in your comments.