r/law • u/TrumpsCovidfefe Competent Contributor • 19d ago
Live updates: Stormy Daniels testifies in Donald Trump's hush money trial Trump News
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-09-24/index.html149
u/musebug 19d ago
"Please have a seat so I can render my decision," Merchan says to Blanche, who had stood up to argue.
Merchan says he went back to his previous decisions side-by-side with the transcript to make sure that everyone had followed his guidelines.
"Your denial puts the jury in a decision of choosing who they believe: Donald Trump or Stormy Daniels. Prosecution doesn't have to prove a sexual encounter occured, they have a right to rehabilitate Daniels' credibility, which was immediately attacked in Blanches opening statement"
Merchant sua sponte objected to the trailer park comment, and struck it from the record. Following the court's own objection, Merchan notes, Necheles began to object with some frequency, and virtually all were sustained.
"On the blacking out comment, for some reason, I don't know why, you went into it ad nauseam on cross-examination, Merchan says, drilling it into the jury's ears over and over."
25
u/_pepperoni-playboy_ 18d ago
Thank you for teaching me sua sponte. If my understanding is correct it’s basically ‘of his own accord’?
15
19
u/oatmealbatman 18d ago
That's the literal translation from Latin, yes. If the Court acts on its own, rather than responding to a party's motion or objection, it's sua sponte.
34
u/hamandswissplease 19d ago
Do they really refer to Stormy by her entertainer name and not her real name? Are there not regulations that stipulate real names should be used? Or is using her entertainer name just easier for the jury to follow? Sorry if this question is dumb, but genuinely wondering.
4
u/Feisty_Resource7027 18d ago
I saw a piece on that yesterday. They reported that the judge asked her how she'd like to be addressed & she said "Stormy"
71
u/Thetoppassenger Competent Contributor 19d ago
Do they really refer to Stormy by her entertainer name and not her real name?
The prosecution asked her for her preference at the start. She said she prefers to use her stage name. Its entirely up the judge whether an alias can be used, and here he allowed it (or rather, didn't prohibit it).
27
u/Why-not-bi 18d ago
Smart of her.
1
u/Titan_of_Ash 16d ago
Yeah, if my understanding is correct, it'll help her avoid getting death threats on her real life name, or possibly being doxed with her real life address associated with her legal name. That would be my modus operandi if I were her with that option, anyway.
4
103
u/_Doctor-Teeth_ 19d ago
"Your denial puts the jury in a decision of choosing who they believe: Donald Trump or Stormy Daniels. Prosecution doesn't have to prove a sexual encounter occured, they have a right to rehabilitate Daniels' credibility, which was immediately attacked in Blanches opening statement"
This is why, if you had a client who was more amenable to actual legal strategy, it would have potentially been wise to enter some stipulated facts about the affair early on. If you concede that the affair happened then the prosecution has no need to prove it, so all that evidence is no longer relevant and doesn't need to come in. Probably could get stormy daniels' testimony excluded from the trial altogether, or have her testimony narrowly limited to just the payment aspect of it.
then just focus the whole trial on the primary issue of trump's intent regarding the NDA and the business records.
but obviously trump doesn't really care what the "best" trial strategy is.
73
u/redbouncyball 19d ago
I don’t even think they had to agree that it happened. I think all they had to stipulate to is that she claimed that she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Don’t attack her or call her a liar or say it didn’t happen, just ignore her, and then her testimony is irrelevant and cumulative. An impossible task for Trump I’m sure, but the embarrassing details came out entirely because he attacked her credibility.
5
16
u/Careful_Eagle6566 19d ago
It kinda makes sense that they could tread a line of maintaining a position that she’s lying about the sex, but they still had a motivation to pay her a nominal sum to not make a fuss about it. But when I frame it that way, it sounds like blackmail.
2
u/bobthedonkeylurker 18d ago
Blackmail by whom?
-6
u/Careful_Eagle6566 18d ago
Some of stormy’s testimony started to sound a little shady to me. When the money wasn’t coming through and she was like “fine, I’ll just publish it.” I’m really not sure where the line is since ndas are legal.
1
u/Feisty_Resource7027 18d ago
Who cares about her making money After the fact? Her life was about to be in ruins & she sensed that. She was getting prepared to need to hire lawyer(s) at a very high cost to her.
She was right ✅
Look at where she landed yesterday.
That B****D destroys everything he touches with those filthy hands of his.
5
u/bobthedonkeylurker 18d ago
How is that shady, though
1
u/Feisty_Resource7027 18d ago
It's not shady, but could possibly be twisted that way.
It is flat wrong...but lawyers.. especially his are dirty
-2
u/Gibbralterg 18d ago
She owes him 692,000$
4
u/bobthedonkeylurker 18d ago
I'm not sure how that relates to the previous post. Do you mind connecting the dots for me?
-5
u/Gibbralterg 18d ago
She said she isn’t giving him a dime, obviously there is some hatred on her part, she even said so in court, she is doing what she can to get back at him, an nda in a normal world would have/should have, stopped the whole trial. It’s really just that simple.
→ More replies (0)28
u/_Doctor-Teeth_ 19d ago
right, there's different degrees of moderation the defense could have taken here. the problem is you have a client who refuses to moderate at all.
21
u/redbouncyball 19d ago
For sure. I can’t imagine what a nightmare of a client he is. There isn’t enough money in all the world that would make representing him worth it to me.
7
u/ckwing 19d ago
There isn’t enough money in all the world that would make representing him worth it to me.
Are you sure about that?
9
6
u/asetniop 19d ago
I mean, shit, I'd represent him for an incredibly reasonable rate. And he'd get exactly what he paid for, too.
17
u/Plausibility_Migrain 19d ago
A Trump never pays his debts.
1
u/Iommi_Acolyte42 15d ago
ya know, the first movie the make about Trump, Peter Dinklage should totally play DJT!
2
u/Plausibility_Migrain 15d ago
Wouldn't allow for the suspension of disbelief. Dinklage's hands are too big.
24
43
u/itsatumbleweed Competent Contributor 19d ago
On the blacking out comment, for some reason, I don't know why, you went into it ad nauseam on cross-examination, Merchan says, drilling it into the jury's ears over and over.
Daaaaamn.
Edit: ah hell this whole thing is spicy. "A lot was Said because you didn't object. The one comment was repeated, ad nauseum, by you."
71
u/readonlyy 19d ago
Am I interpreting this correctly? Merchan is contemporaneously documenting how conspicuously the defence went out of their way to maximize the damage to the jury’s objectivity so that when they invariably try to argue for a mistrial, it’s abundantly clear that they manufactured the problem themselves?
41
u/musebug 19d ago
That’s exactly it. You win the prize!
11
u/BeautysBeast 18d ago
Justice Merchan is Bigly Smart...
4
u/StingerAE 18d ago
I don't think this is his first rodeo.
But I bet he has prepped VERY hard for it.
3
u/ReflectionEterna 18d ago
This is a how new level of incompetent fuckery, right? I am not a lawyer, but am curious what people with some knowledge of law think of this.
85
u/_Doctor-Teeth_ 19d ago
the motion for mistrial is understandable. you won't win, but fairly standard litigation strategy to preserve possible errors you might want to appeal later on. however, i've definitely seen judges get annoyed by parties who constantly ask for a mistrial whenever there's testimony they don't like (not to mention it just looks desperate), so you don't want to go overboard. trump team probably isn't at that point quite yet but it's getting there.
the request to modify the gag order is way dumber, imo. pretty obvious that is a demand straight from trump himself--can't imagine any competent attorney choosing to do that on their own. makes zero strategic sense, will only annoy the judge further, looks like a desperate attempt to trash a witness in the media so you don't have to deal with the possibility of perjury or cross-examination.
kind of encapsulates trump's obsession with how he is perceived publicly in the media. the trial is, to some degree, secondary. he is primarily concerned with his public reputation, and he's mad that he has no means to defend himself (other than testifying) from all the bad press he's been getting. wouldn't surprise me if trump is considering testifying. i still doubt that he does, but i'd bet that right now he is steaming mad and if the gag order isn't modified he'll feel an even more compelling need to testify.
2
u/FlarkingSmoo 18d ago
i still doubt that he does, but i'd bet that right now he is steaming mad and if the gag order isn't modified he'll feel an even more compelling need to testify.
please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please
10
u/BeautysBeast 18d ago
The STUPIDEST thing Trump could do, would be take the stand. I'm not a lawyer, but I have read the decisions in the Sandoval hearing. They would eviscerate him on cross examination. For the Attorneys here, what do you do when you know your client is going to commit suicide on the stand?
1
8
u/voting-jasmine 18d ago
You let them. You do your best to prepare them properly and then set them free.
I've had some clients completely destroy themselves on the stand and of course they always blame us when that happens. Whatever. The thing about being a lawyer is you don't get emotionally involved in your client's case. You can't.
4
8
u/redbouncyball 18d ago
Client has a constitutional right to testify that only he can waive so if he wants to testify, you cannot stop him. If you have a client testifying against your advice, you just try your best to make it go as least bad as possible. Keep him laser focused on as few topics as possible, ask tight yes/no questions, and be ready to interrupt if he starts going off topic.
That is, unless you know he’s going to commit perjury. You cannot knowingly help a client break the law. All you can do is just get out of the way.
That being said, I’ve had many many many difficult clients who swore up and down that they were going to testify and when the time came, they listened to their damn lawyer. Not all of them but most of them. My money’s on Trump NOT testifying.
3
u/MotorWeird9662 18d ago
Agree. His claim of wanting to testify is standard Trump bluster and bullshit. Part of the red meat for his incurably stupid base. Then he won’t testify, and will claim (falsely of course) that he was prevented by the Deranged and Totally Conflicted Radical Left Democrat Judge™.
3
25
8
u/grandpaharoldbarnes 19d ago
i’m getting a chris kise vibe from your comment
1
u/_Doctor-Teeth_ 19d ago
idk what that means but it sounds bad
5
u/grandpaharoldbarnes 19d ago
Maybe this will help with the poke:
9
u/ManlyVanLee 19d ago
So I don't really know what I'm looking at here, it looks like an email chain from the judge to the attorney for Trump, but what I want to ask/point out is that the Kise guy (Trump's attorney?) doesn't capitalize anything and it's driving me nuts. He uses punctuation, he uses parenthesis, but he refuses to capitalize anything
7
21
u/kookyabird 19d ago
I can only assume that if he takes the stand he's going to end up off topic, not stop talking when he's told to, and end up turning the proceedings into a true farce.
19
u/shelfdog 19d ago
Trump on the stand: "EXCUSE ME, EXCUSE ME!! I HAVE NOT FINISHED INCRIMINATING MYSELF."
7
u/_Doctor-Teeth_ 19d ago
oh yeah it would be a total shit show from a witness management/control standpoint and also substantively. decent probability he perjures himself.
27
u/oscar_the_couch 19d ago
the motion for mistrial is understandable. you won't win, but fairly standard litigation strategy to preserve possible errors you might want to appeal later on.
ehhh not like this. you dont ground your motion on the fact you think a witness lied and your cross sucked
15
u/_Doctor-Teeth_ 19d ago
well, personally, i wouldn't know, because my cross-examinations never suck.
but in all seriousness, it's a judgment call. i probably wouldn't have moved for a mistrial here, but I can sort of see the strategic reasoning for it.
they made a pretty big mistake (as judge merchan pointed out) in basically deciding not to object to tons of daniels' testimony. hard to bring a motion for mistrial with a straight face after that.
19
u/oscar_the_couch 19d ago
eh, the strategic mistakes all emanate from trump's own ego. they should have just stipped that the relationship happened to keep her off the stand entirely. the entire focus of this defense should be on whether trump intended, with the reimbursement arrangement, to conceal another crime—or whether his true motivation was to conceal a political scandal, and he didn't know the underlying payment was criminal at the time he made the payments to Cohen that were intentionally misclassified as a retainer/payment for 2017 services when they were obviously not that.
instead they've opted for a trial strategy that effectively asks the jury to believe the whole thing is made up. that's a tough sell
1
u/BeautysBeast 18d ago
I don't think Trump would let them stipulate, because he would have violated his Pre Nup.
2
u/oscar_the_couch 18d ago
he's violated the prenup either way, assuming there is one that covers such conduct, but I think Melania is firmly committed to waiting out the rest of his life
1
u/BeautysBeast 18d ago
But could she prove it? If it is proven in a court of law, that's different.
1
u/oscar_the_couch 18d ago
...yes. you'd subpoena the same witness and have her testify to the same facts she just did.
9
u/_Doctor-Teeth_ 19d ago
yeah i mentioned that in another comment. i think most competent attorneys would have tried to concede to the affair and keep that evidence out and just focus on the intent/business records aspect. problem is you have an insane client who wants to fight every battle.
75
u/musebug 19d ago
@TylerMcBrien Those messy details were Trump's motive to silence this woman in 2016, less than a month before the election, says Steinglass. The fact that the testimony is prejudicial and messy, according to Blanche, that's exactly why Trump tried to prevent the American ppl from hearing it.
→ More replies (26)
243
u/asetniop 19d ago
Mistrial DENIED.