Trump’s defense team has moved for a mistrial over Stormy Daniels’ testimony
“We move for a mistrial based on the testimony this morning,” defense attorney Todd Blanche said following the lunch break.
“The guardrails by this witness answering questions by the government were just thrown to the side,” Blanche said.
“There is no remedy that we can fashion … to unring this bell,” Blanche said about the impact of Daniels’ testimony.
Blanche argued the prosecutors wanted to embarrass Trump and inflame the jury and was far afield from a case about falsification of business records.
“She talked about a consensual encounter with President Trump that she was trying to sell,” Blanche said. “We heard a completely different story.”
Blanche argued that the testimony regarding condoms, being “blacked out” and and the “power dynamic” prejudiced the jury.
“This has nothing to do with the reason why we’re here,” Blanche said. “How can you un-ring a bell?”
The prosecution pushed back.
“Her account completes the narrative that precipitated the falsification of business records,” Hoffinger said. “It is precisely what the defendant did not want to become public.”
I wonder if they didn’t object specifically to allow testimony they planned to declare prejudicial.
That’s what I believe they are doing. Trump has decent lawyers for his criminal trial. They’re ruining their credibility as good lawyers, but they absolutely DO understand the law.
They knew they could object but chose not to so they could file for a mistrial. Of course, as has been pointed out, defense would have needed to object at the time. But they have to try something. Shit like this seems to buy them delay time more often than not.
My thoughts exactly.
Been following the NYT live coverage for most of the day. The defense claimed that they did not object more because there was intense discussion before the jury was brought in for the day about what the prosecution could cover in Daniels’ testimony. The defense believed that the questions asked were following what the prosecution and judge had agreed upon and that their objections would not be received well.
It’s a flimsy justification, but that was their response during the mistrial discussion.
Well, that’s a spin! And one I don’t buy fully. Make the objections anyway and get shot down, but I personally think they wanted the mistrial motion, which they had to know also wouldn’t work…