Trump moves for mistrial, Stormy testimony "unduly prejudicial"

[emulatorloo]

Yeah, good luck w that.

Trump lawyer moves for a mistrial

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-day-13-live-updates-rcna150793/rcrd41229?canonicalCard=true


Adam Reiss and Rebecca Shabad

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said the defense team moves for a mistrial based on the testimony from Daniels this morning.

Blanche argued that the guardrails were thrown aside and the testimony was unduly prejudicial to Trump and the charges in the case. He said her testimony about her encounter with Trump in 2006 is much different from the stories she was telling in 2016.

He said that her testimony has nothing to do with the case and argued that the only reason prosecutors asked about the encounter aside from embarrassing Trump was to inflame the jury.

"What's the jury to do with that?" he said. “It’s still extraordinarily prejudicial to insert safety — safety concerns into a trial about business records.”

"There's no way to unring the bell in our view," he said.

[Tree Lady]

1. Defense could have objected

but didn't because they were looking for a reason for mistrial.

[emulatorloo]

2. Good point. They did object some, and judge ruled in their favor a fair amount.

They could also try to do damage in cross, but pretty sure Daniels can handle whatever they throw at her.

[Drum]

3. Judge denies the motion n/t

[emulatorloo]

4. Of course! They're just putting on a show for their nasty client.

Judge Merchan denies defense motion for a mistrial

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-day-13-live-updates-rcna150793/rcrd41231?canonicalCard=true



Gary Grumbach and Rebecca Shabad
Merchan has denied the motion for a mistrial that was brought by Trump's defense team.

“As a threshold matter, Mr. Blanche, I agree that there were things that would have been better left unsaid," the judge said. “I think the witness was a little difficult to control.”

“I don’t believe we’re at the point where a mistrial is warranted," he added. “I’m also surprised that there were not more objections."

[RockRaven]

9. That's a nice little twist of the knife by the judge there.

[Ocelot II]

10. "I'm also surprised that there were not more objections."

If they didn't like the testimony why didn't they object to it? Maybe hoping it would come in so they had a better argument for a mistrial? Unfortunately the failure to object to testimony means you waive the objection on appeal.

[unblock]

5. The nature of what happened is at the heart of his motive to falsify records to keep it secret.

Without her testimony, the defense could argue that whatever stormy had to say was made up or inconsequential and so why would they commit fraud to hide payments to her.

Well, they'll argue that anyway, but it obviously makes her testimony material and relevant.

[RockRaven]

6. It has "nothing to do with the case" eh? What horseshit.

That event is the reason for the payout which the business records were falsified to conceal.

That is something, not nothing. Enough something? Well that's a better question / credible line of argument. "Nothing to do with" is weak.

[Johnny2X2X]

7. Denied!

Judge said it, “Whether these are new stories or not new stories the remedy is on cross examination,”

Basically, do your own job counselor, I won't do it for you.

[Ocelot II]

8. "Her testimony has nothing to do with the case"? Seriously?

You mean, just aside from the fact that she was paid $130K to shut up about bumping uglies with Trump because he didn't want that fact to come out just before the election, and that's why the business records were falsified?

Nice try...

[Arne]

11. Yer Honor,

We didn't like the witness testifying about all the spurting, I mean shooting,
well it's just a big load, I mean