General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy wife (a Lawyer) is not thrilled with Stormy Daniels' testimony...
Her adding unnecessary detail to the sexual activity testimony may offer Trump an appeal on the grounds of tainting the Jury. Reminder that rape/sexual assault, etc. are not charges in this case. All she needed to do is testify that they had sex which Trump needed to cover up.
emulatorloo
(44,409 posts)brooklynite
(95,642 posts)Its been suggested that the Defense didn't object precisely to have grounds for an appeal. They know he'll be found guilty on the actual business/election fraud charges, and need something else to throw the case out.
Tommy Carcetti
(43,267 posts)Ask your wife about that.
hlthe2b
(103,028 posts)have been "too cute by half"... even though most analysts would agree that streamlining that aspect of the testimony would have been better (and certainly less cringe-worthy). That said, Daniels has a right to testify and show her human side--which she did--even with extraneous details, which likely increases her believability. So, it cuts both ways.
emulatorloo
(44,409 posts)a kennedy
(30,169 posts)cause I thought I heard that tRump kept poking his attorney to object to stuff.
trumps poking is what has gotten him to where he is today!
a kennedy
(30,169 posts)Tommy Carcetti
(43,267 posts)Simply testifying we had sex and leaving it at that with no further detail makes the claims easily dismissible by Trump.
On the other hand, providing the proper narrative lays the foundation as a story that Trump did not want getting out.
For what its worth, I believe it was Tyler McBrien who has been in the court room and providing a live Twitter feed said that at the end of the day, none of the jurors even looked at Trump as they were exiting the courtroom. Take that for what its worth.
Oopsie Daisy
(3,101 posts)* and Trump knows it. He wouldn't care. But the fact that it played out as it did, well, he knows that too. And THAT'S what he was so concerned about and wanted to cover up.
brooklynite
(95,642 posts)The additional detail is only relevant to the accuracy of her testimony if the prosecution can then present corroborating facts (Trump owns silk boxer shorts; he and Melania don't sleep together), which they didn't.
getagrip_already
(15,376 posts)They haven't refuted any of those facts either. They won't put melania on the stand, and they won't put trump on the stand.
In totality, she painted a picture that only someone who had been there would have known. None of it has been refuted.
And the defense has to be careful not to open doors. If they aren't careful, there is one detail stormy can offer that a doctor can corroborate. They do this even in child rape cases where the child describes a feature, birthmark, or deformity. The court issues a search warrant and a court appointed doctor inspects the defendent.
Do they really want to start saying she has her facts wrong? really?
Tommy Carcetti
(43,267 posts)It can be offered for the truth of the matter asserted, or in other words, to prove that something actually took place.
But it can also be offered simply to prove that something was said, regardless of whether or not it was true, if the statement itself is at issue.
An example of this is defamation cases. A statement can be offered into evidence, not to prove what was said was true (and in the case of defamation, the exact opposite of that), but rather that it was said at all.
This is why there is a fine line about what is and what is not hearsay.
So regarding the statements about boxer shorts or Trump's sleeping arrangements--if those were part of the original story offered by Daniels years ago, then they certainly can be relevant and admissible as to the extent of what Trump might have wanted to suppress from coming out.
Of course, if those were just details brought out later on, yes, perhaps they could be viewed as irrelevant and/or prejudicial.
MorbidButterflyTat
(1,962 posts)Raven123
(5,121 posts)I have mixed feelings about Daniels testimony. On the other hand, every one knows TFG has been an adulterer. Why would he pay the sum he did just to silence an accuser? His defense team claimed in opening that he is a good family man.
Also, he could simply testify that she lied and go on with whatever argument they plan to use about the payment. Its unclear to me where the defense will land on this. Some level of detail lends credibility to the Daniels claim. Unfortunately she went too far.
I just hope the prosecutors can keep Cohen from doing the same thing.
spanone
(136,266 posts)brooklynite
(95,642 posts)spanone
(136,266 posts)emulatorloo
(44,409 posts)MOMFUDSKI
(6,362 posts)the goods on clown out before the election. Unless Jack goes ahead with major leaking. All other trials are stymied.
brooklynite
(95,642 posts)Happy Hoosier
(7,631 posts)Trump claims the sex act didn't occur. Details of event add to the witness's credibility.
If Trump's lawyers thought this detail was too prejudcial, then they should have objected to it at the time.
The fact that they didn;t means one of three things:
1) They are incompetent (not so, according to a number of analysts I've seen)
2) They didn't think it was too prejudicial, but decided to object after the fact becasue Trump lost his damned mind. (that last part is sepculation)
3) They are were TRYING to force a mistrial. That's not gonna work, since as mentioned by a number of people, they have a duty to object to inadmissable testimony as it is occurring.
Simply put, by not objecting as the testimoney was given, they pretty much shot themselves in the foot. As Merchan said... the defense has to take some responsibility for prejudicial testimony if they didn;t object to it.
brooklynite
(95,642 posts)Happy Hoosier
(7,631 posts)The defense saying "we fucked up?" Unless they want to decalre themselves "ineffective counsel," which would be devasting to their reputations, that has no teeth.
And Lawyers generally cannot object later to evidence that they did not object to at the time, as Merchan said.
If they fucked up, that's on them. If they were attempting to set a "mistrial trap," That's not permitted.
Short of an ieffective counsel claim, they have no grounds.
brooklynite
(95,642 posts)Happy Hoosier
(7,631 posts)If the defense had objected and Merchan overruled the objection, they'd have grounds for reversible error.
What's the reversible error here? "Your honors, we suck and didn't do our job properly?"
Appeals require actual reversible error on the judge's part. Not just that they didn't like the testimony that THEY didn't object to!
If they argue that the testimony should not have been allowed, the appeals court will argue "why didn't you object at the time?"
hlthe2b
(103,028 posts)she does not appear to have considered or at least discussed this. The issue isn't whether or not they can appeal (they will find something, regardless, to try to mount an appeal). The issue is whether it is backed with true grounds for overturning a prior court judgment and that is NOT a low bar. Justice Merchan is very much aware of this (and Trump's lawyer's desperate tactics/strategy). He appropriately stepped in when the defense failed to do their due diligence in mounting objections and made it quite clear to note this on the record.
And no, it is not required that prosecutors recover Trump's clothing or anything else to validate Daniel's statement as was stated upstream. This is not a rape trial. Her role is merely to show the story from her POV that might have been made public had she not been paid off. Thus, the jury can see WHY the illegal payment strategy was launched and supports why Trump would have had the motivation to do what he is alleged to have done via Michael Cohen to prevent her story from coming to light just prior to the election (and after the already damaging release of the Access Hollywood tape).
bluestarone
(17,396 posts)It's not like they were bringing things up that were (are) false? Also with NO objection from defense, i'd say they are NOT out of line. This also was Stormy responding to a DEFENSE question right? So i'm thinking can't blame the prosecution. But i'm no lawyer, so i just hope they cannot appeal.
brooklynite
(95,642 posts)bluestarone
(17,396 posts)Would that make a difference?
brooklynite
(95,642 posts)Happy Hoosier
(7,631 posts)If they do not object, it implies they believe the evidence is admissable. This is an adversarial process. They didn't push back when they should have and that's on them.
Happy Hoosier
(7,631 posts)... they don;t have any grounds for appeal here. Merchan told them at the ouset it was their responsibility to object to testimony they found objectionable. They didn't do so. Too bad, so sad.
MOMFUDSKI
(6,362 posts)Prosecutors will do what they want.
mackdaddy
(1,544 posts)He said that it was not his job to object and that he would have sustained if they had objected.
Although the crimes being prosecuted here are all financial and document falsification, THIS story is why all of that was done, and this woman was the direct recipient of the payoff. So was the story bad enough for Trump to pay all of this and do all of these coverup actions?
And Trump has been saying that she lied about everything. Her telling her story, in her own words, with the amount of details about the room, their interactions and discussions help the jurors decide if she was being truthful or not.
I have no doubt that this will be used in the appeal and it might be why Trumps lawyers did allow it to go as far as it did. They do not have much else.
Trump loves to whine about his 'testimony' being gagged. The person who's actual testimony was being gagged was Stormy Daniels being told what parts of her story she could not tell...
Happy Hoosier
(7,631 posts)You may be right, but their argument will collapse once the appelate judges ask "why didn't you object to the testimony as it was occurring?"
If there answer is "we wanted grounds for appeal," that's a tough argument!
PCIntern
(25,856 posts)There wasn't THAT much detail: condom or no condom, what he was wearing...it wasn't a porno novel designed for "release" and gratification. I don't get the pearl-clutching and faux-virginal whining about the "details" - I would post a true narrative with real details but it'd be alerted upon in about 15 seconds by the easily-offended. I'll put it this way: if an individual with whom I were having a sexual relationship posted one of these gasping-revulsion rejections of these innocuous details, I would be embarrassed as a partner. Ridiculous.
brooklynite
(95,642 posts)emulatorloo
(44,409 posts)Defense did not do their job. See Mackdaddy post #10.
PCIntern
(25,856 posts)important to hammer home the fact that it was not a lie which she told, as the defendant claims. Details help. The judge was acting as the judges normally do since he did not know exactly what she might say in open court. Somehow, all the adults in the room survived.
Jersey Devil
(9,888 posts)that the defense would argue on summation that her failure to give details shows that she is making up the whole story, allowing Trump to continue arguing that the event never happened.
SARose
(409 posts)What would you think had she said he sent a limousine; we went to dinner at fill-in-the-blank restaurant; he ordered champagne; we drove to his hotel; had sex; he sent me 3 dozen roses the next day.
He is embarrassed because he treated her (and still does) like a piece of meat.
PS - thats why he paid her off, IMHO.
Happy Hoosier
(7,631 posts)1) Trump denies sex occurred. Her testimony to the details of the event is evidence to the fact that the event DID occur. The payoff is the matter at issue, but Trump claiming the act did not occur is an attack on her credibility which IS defensible.
2) It could even go so far as describing genetalia. Daniels' "mushroom" description could be evidence of an actual sexual act if Trump's tiny knob IS in fact mushroom-like.
3) It's Trump's lawyers' job to object to testimony, not the Prosecutor's, or the judges. If they did not object to testimony when it was given, it's difficult to argue later than it should cause a mistrial, because all the judge reviewing the case has to ask is "why didn't you object to the testimony?" "I made a mistake." is not a reversible reason.
NanaCat
(2,332 posts)It's not Stormy's job to determine the scope of her testimony. She's not a lawyer, so why expect her to know where the lines need to be, legally? And why are you going the same old tired misogynist route of blaming a woman for the failure of lawyers or the court to help her understand where those lines are?
MorbidButterflyTat
(1,962 posts)Will the male witnesses be judged as harshly and blamed for any and all missteps, real or imagined?
GAWD this crap is beyond old.
niyad
(115,059 posts)SunsetDreams2
(273 posts)Thats what she did. If she was allowed to elaborate on HER TRUTH, that is the defense problem, not hers! The most he can hope for is ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal.
Patton French
(832 posts)The prosecution pushed the envelope too far unnecessarily, and it may backfire.
LiberalFighter
(52,166 posts)It is the defense making mistakes. That doesn't justify a mistrial. The judge has now warned the defense they didn't object to what they had complained.
brooklynite
(95,642 posts).....you can't instruct the Jury "Ignore the fact that the defendant did something sleazy" after the fact
Prairie Gates
(1,265 posts)Wow!
I'm glad we had a lawyer spouse around to fill us in on this obscurantist bit of legal arcana.
intheflow
(28,568 posts)should be enough. Consider Mrs. Daniels account as the motivation for the defendant to pay her off. She didnt bribe him, he/his representative approached her. If the judge puts the testimony in context like this, hes done his due diligence. And of course, the defendant did do something sleazy, the pay off.
dpibel
(2,960 posts)You're wife's not a trial lawyer, right?
You clearly have no idea how these things work.
That kind of curative instruction is commonplace.
unblock
(52,883 posts)yes there is a rationale to limit her testimony to what's relevant and material to the case, and extraneous details may not be relevant and material and could be prejudicial. sure.
but the case isn't specifically about the sex, the nda didn't specifically mention the sex, and there's no basis for assuming that the reason for the nda and the payoff and the desire to keep her story out of the media was simply the fact that they had sex.
the nda and the payoff and the silencing was about her entire story and/or embarrassing details that donnie believed might have been highly damaging to his image.
and sure, it's reasonable to think that the mere fact that they had sex was the main image problem for him here.
but there's no reason to think that the specific details wouldn't also be worthy of coverup. as others have noted, he was already known to be an adulterer. but he wasn't known to like being spanked, for instance. *that* could certainly be part of the reason, or even a big part of the reason, to want to keep her quite.
or the fact that it seems he was the aggressor. the need to silence her might have been different had she been the aggressor or even somehow coerced him.
anyway, what's legally relevant is not specifically that they had sex. what's legally relevant is that she had a story to tell that he thought was sufficiently embarrassing to want to keep out of the media. that story *include* sex, but there's no reason to arbitrarily limit her story to the simple fact of that they had sex.
never mind that the only way she could convince anyone that they had sex 18 years ago would be to tell a credible story, which necessarily involves providing many more details than simple "yes, we had sex".
Orrex
(63,443 posts)CNNHN ran an extensive live broadcast of her testimony about the nature of her panties and the sex fantasy roleplay that she'd engaged in with her victim.
I don't recall any concerns about jury-tainting in that case.
Prairie Gates
(1,265 posts)The Magistrate
(95,410 posts)Elessar Zappa
(14,323 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,834 posts)To the rest of us it was political porn, but it may come at a cost.
walkingman
(7,897 posts)Barry Markson
(280 posts)Trump's team seemed a bit caught off guard by her appearance Tuesday but has now had Tuesday night and all day yesterday to prepare for cross.
There is no gag order in the courtroom.
Tickle
(2,669 posts)and I stated it here on DU. My post got removed.
bucolic_frolic
(44,113 posts)I don't think that will shock a jury. As to rules of evidence, that's for the lawyers and judge to hash out. The judge knows two things at this point: A prime witness has strayed into the rough, and the defense is more interested in piling up grounds for appeal than in asserting their objections.
MorbidButterflyTat
(1,962 posts)Was she in the courtroom? Did she study the transcripts? Have they even been released, I wonder. Talking heads on various news shows and/or podcasts, etc., maybe?
If Stormy's testimony would be grounds for appeal then why didn't the judge grant a mistrial when the defense brought it up?
"I'm a lousy defense attorney and didn't object when I should have! Appeal!" Sounds kinda lame.
BTW....why is your wife blaming Stormy Daniels for her "unnecessary" testimony? Isn't that the prosecutors' job? Aren't they in charge of their own witnesses?
"...adding unnecessary detail to the sexual activity testimony.." Like what? There was no sexual activity testimony. The judge specifically said, no mushroom talk.
BannonsLiver
(16,694 posts)She also thought there would be a recession last year. Didn't happen. Opinions are like...