Judge Juan Marchan on Tuesday denied former President Donald Trump’s defense’s motion for a mistrial over adult film star Stormy Daniels’ testimony in a business records trial in Manhattan.
of new york times Maggie Haberman report Todd Blanche, one of Trump’s lawyers, argued that Daniels’ “testimony was unduly prejudicial and that the government was asking questions to ‘stimulate the jury.'”
Blanche argued that Daniels’ story has evolved and that “the jury also heard inappropriate details about his alleged sexual encounters with Mr. Trump.” I got it..
as fox news report:
Blanche said Daniels’ testimony on Tuesday was about “consent and risk,” which was “not the story she was selling in 2016.” Blanche also said Daniels testified about consent and said such testimony “makes reversal impossible.” Blanche said her defense attorney “objected as much as she could, but she was able to say what she wanted to say.”
Blanche questioned how the defense could “recover from this” in a way that was “fair” to former President Trump, saying, “We believe there should be a miscarriage of justice.” “Or perhaps this witness’s testimony is excluded and very limited.”
In a post on X, Daily Caller court reporter Caitlin Richardson quoted Blanche as saying, “The guardrails for this witness to answer questions from the government were just thrown to the side.”
Defense attorney Todd Blanche files a motion for a mistrial based on Daniels’ testimony.
“The guardrails of this witness answering questions from the government were just thrown to the side,” he said. @DailyCaller
— Katelyn Richardson (@katesrichardson) May 7, 2024
In response, prosecutor Susan Hoffinger argued that the state was “very careful not to elicit too much testimony,” according to Richardson.
According to The Hill, Marchan said Daniels’ testimony was “too detailed,” but denied claims of a miscarriage of justice. He reportedly placed restrictions on how the jury could use her testimony.
Judge Juan Marchan poses for a photo in his New York courtroom on Thursday, March 14, 2024. Judge Machan could become the first judge to oversee the criminal trial of a former U.S. president. He is presiding over Donald Trump’s hush money case in New York. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
Mr Marchand says he does not think we have reached the point where a miscarriage of justice is warranted.
Although he agrees there were things that would have been better left unsaid, he said he accepted most of the defense’s objections.
“I’m surprised there wasn’t more opposition,” he said.
— Katelyn Richardson (@katesrichardson) May 7, 2024
Richardson also said he was “surprised there wasn’t more opposition.”
But, as Haberman writes, Trump defense attorney Susan Necheres said, “The defense team had moved to attack so many things beforehand, and Marchand still allowed it to happen.” “It has said.
“She states that the prosecutor believed she was doing something that Mr. Marchand authorized during cross-examination. Mr. Marchand disagrees,” Haberman added.
The case is new york vs trump New York County Supreme Court No. 71543-23.
