Judge Denies Trump's Mistrial Request Over Stormy Daniels Testimony

[Social Media]

 

Judge Juan Merchan has rejected former President Trump's legal team's plea for a mistrial following Stormy Daniels's explicit testimony on Tuesday. While acknowledging that Daniels's testimony delved into "too much detail," Merchan determined that it did not warrant declaring a mistrial. Trump's attorneys argued that Daniels, a key witness for the prosecution, altered her narrative during her testimony, and the jury was exposed to inappropriate specifics regarding her alleged encounter with Trump. Todd Blanche, Trump's attorney, contended that the boundaries for Daniels's testimony were disregarded.

 

 

Although refusing a mistrial, Judge Merchan agreed to issue a limiting instruction concerning certain aspects of Daniels's earlier testimony, restricting the jurors' use of it.

 

Daniels returned to the stand after the court's lunch break to continue her direct examination. She had been called by prosecutors earlier in the day, finally delivering her much-anticipated testimony after weeks of anticipation. Daniels asserts that she engaged in an affair with Trump in 2006, a claim Trump denies. The prosecution's case revolves around Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen's $130,000 payment to Daniels to maintain secrecy about the alleged affair.

 

 

Trump, who has pleaded not guilty, faces 34 counts of falsifying business records related to the payment. Blanche requested a mistrial after Daniels's graphic morning testimony, alleging inconsistencies in her story and objecting to the explicit details revealed.

 

Susan Hoffinger, a prosecutor from the Manhattan district attorney's office, refuted Blanche's claims, arguing that Daniels's narrative has been public for years and that the defense should have been prepared for her testimony. With the defense's consent, Hoffinger advised Daniels to remain focused on the questions asked during her testimony.

 

Despite the defense's objections, Daniels resumed her testimony, with Trump's attorneys yet to cross-examine her. The courtroom drama surrounding the trial is expected to continue as the proceedings unfold throughout the day. Live updates

 

2024-05-08

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

 

[candide]

Another lame attempt to delay the trial. As if anyone didn't already know about the tiny mushroom! 😀

[flyingtlger]

LOL, Trump looks like a cross between The Grinch and The Lorax in all of his portrayals.....

[OneMoreFarang]

And the bible thumpers love him. Amazing!

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

Headlines from Jonathan Alter, NY Times Opinion writer:

 

The Boring Documents That May Be Devastating to Trump

In a case about falsified records, it's the records themselves that count the most
May 6, 2024

 

Stormy Daniels Was Entertaining, but Did She Make a Real Impact?

Jurors may believe she and Trump had a tryst, but not necessarily her entire testimony

May 7 2024

 

NB Mr. Alter was inside the courtroom

Edited May 7 by jerrymahoney

[Skipalongcassidy]

"I used to try cases for a living. I still have a pretty good sense of what evidence is relevant, what is prejudicial and what is completely over-the-top inadmissible. What the judge is letting in today in the Trump trial in NYC will be remembered as a dark stain on our judicial system, reminiscent of corrupt dictatorships. Shame on the prosecution for undermining our judicial system," David Friedman, a lawyer and former U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Trump administration, posted on X. 

[Tug]

Poor poor trump so mistreated gee wizz you’d think hoseing a porn star as the wife stays home taking care of the new born was bad…..then trying to hide it during the election and using campaign funds to pay for it was bad go figure.and this is by far the least serious of the crimes he’s been indicted for…..ditch the albatross enough is enough lock him up 

[Yagoda]

Any legal expert not blinded by TDS knows that this testimony by stormy adds to the list of reversible errors

[Chomper Higgot]

So Daniels gives sworn testimony on the sexual encounter that Defendant Trump denied took place and that the Prosecution allege was the facts that the Defendant conspired to hide from voters.

The Defense are given the opportunity to cross examine and of course Defendant Trump can himself take the stand.

 

What the Defense choose to do is put on a performance for their client.

 

 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

Should do like in Thailand: Reenactment by the accused with police and reporters present.

[Yagoda]

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So Daniels gives sworn testimony on the sexual encounter that Defendant Trump denied took place and that the Prosecution allege was the facts that the Defendant conspired to hide from voters.

The Defense are given the opportunity to cross examine and of course Defendant Trump can himself take the stand.

 

What the Defense choose to do is put on a performance for their client.

 

 

I loove it when folks with no knowledge of US law pontificate.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

I loove it when folks with no knowledge of US law pontificate.

I’m sure you do.

 

I love it when Trump fans run out of arguments and resort to making baseless assumptions about those whose opinion they can’t deal with.

 

 

[Yagoda]

2 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

"I used to try cases for a living. I still have a pretty good sense of what evidence is relevant, what is prejudicial and what is completely over-the-top inadmissible. What the judge is letting in today in the Trump trial in NYC will be remembered as a dark stain on our judicial system, reminiscent of corrupt dictatorships. Shame on the prosecution for undermining our judicial system," David Friedman, a lawyer and former U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Trump administration, posted on X. 

If you peruse the news, most of the legal experts think the same way.

 

At the same time, the documents case might fall apart due to willful violations of Big Oranges rights. Mishandling of evidence, chain of custody etc.

 

Not specific to Trump, but the shennagins you see in the Trump cases occur every day in the justice system, just that the poor schnooks caught in the govts web cant afford the lawyers to fight there way out.

[Yagoda]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m sure you do.

 

I love it when Trump fans run out of arguments and resort to making baseless assumptions about those whose opinion they can’t deal with.

 

 

Your lack of knowledge about US law is blatant, not baseless. The more you post, the more ignorance you spew.

[gargamon]

14 minutes ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

Should do like in Thailand: Reenactment by the accused with police and reporters present.

Oh my, NO. A naked morbidly obese Trump and a way past her prime porn star. I'd pay to not see that.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Your lack of knowledge about US law is blatant, not baseless. The more you post, the more ignorance you spew.

Go back to the post you are objecting to and identify anything that is outside U.S. Law or U.S. court procedure. 

[stoner]

20 minutes ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

Should do like in Thailand: Reenactment by the accused with police and reporters present.

 

with lots of pointing. 

[jerrymahoney]

From the live update link:

 

 

"Adult film star Stormy Daniels dished out salacious details of her sexual encounter with former President Donald Trump in 2006 from the witness stand on Tuesday, describing how they met at a celebrity golf tournament and what she says happened when she went to Trump’s Lake Tahoe hotel room."

 

That's OK. We have learned from E. Jean Carroll that some women can give detailed testimony about a sexual encounter that maybe never took place.

 

 

Edited May 8 by jerrymahoney

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

From the live update link:

 

 

"Adult film star Stormy Daniels dished out salacious details of her sexual encounter with former President Donald Trump in 2006 from the witness stand on Tuesday, describing how they met at a celebrity golf tournament and what she says happened when she went to Trump’s Lake Tahoe hotel room."

 

That's OK. We have learned from E. Jean Carroll that some women can give detailed testimony about a sexual encounter that maybe never took place.

 

 

So Stormy Daniels is E Jean Carrol air is it women can’t be believed?

[jerrymahoney]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So Stormy Daniels is E Jean Carrol air is it women can’t be believed?

I believe in corroborable evidence which neither of them have.

[Yagoda]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Go back to the post you are objecting to and identify anything that is outside U.S. Law or U.S. court procedure. 

Dude, when Im walking down the street in NYC and some homeless scruff yells at me to prove that the Moon isnt made of green cheese I just yawn and carry on.

 

I was merely pointing out to the casual readers of this fine forum that there are folks out there who spew utter nonsense based on a pathological condition. That wasnt an invite to debate. Go look it up yourself. 

[Yagoda]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So Stormy Daniels is E Jean Carrol air is it women can’t be believed?

I beleive women, especially Tara Reid and Juanita Broderick. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I believe in corroborable evidence which neither of them have.

What we have evidence of is you attempting to slur the sworn testimony of Daniels with the ‘women can’t be trusted’ trope.

[BKKKevin]

50 minutes ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

Should do like in Thailand: Reenactment by the accused with police and reporters present.

Please!... The last thing we need to see is Sleepy Don's Depends peeking thru his silk pajamas!... 

Edited May 8 by BKKKevin

[Danderman123]

42 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I loove it when folks with no knowledge of US law pontificate.

What part of the post you quoted is incorrect?

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Dude, when Im walking down the street in NYC and some homeless scruff yells at me to prove that the Moon isnt made of green cheese I just yawn and carry on.

 

I was merely pointing out to the casual readers of this fine forum that there are folks out there who spew utter nonsense based on a pathological condition. That wasnt an invite to debate. Go look it up yourself. 

Yet more ad hominem.

 

I look forward to you identifying what in my post you objected to is not aligned with US law or US court practice.

 

 

 

[Danderman123]

35 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Your lack of knowledge about US law is blatant, not baseless. The more you post, the more ignorance you spew.

Please cite the legal errors in the post you quoted. Spewing childish insults convinces no one.

 

If you truly are knowledgeable about US law, educate us.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

What part of the post you quoted is incorrect?

There’s the reason for his anguish and personal attacks.

[jerrymahoney]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What we have evidence of is you attempting to slur the sworn testimony of Daniels with the ‘women can’t be trusted’ trope.

Her testimony is just that. No corroborable evidence that the encounter was as she described.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, jerrymahoney said:

Her testimony is just that. No corroborable evidence that the encounter was as she described.

Well apart from the phone logs.

 

And as you know, testimony is not always corroborated, Juries get to decide if it is credible, especially if other testimony recounts pattern behaviour.

 

Regardless, your slurring the witness is noted.