Posted on 05/10/2024 12:10:00 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
NEW YORK — New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan blamed Donald Trump’s attorney Susan Necheles in court Thursday for not sufficiently objecting in real time to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels’s detailed testimony this week — and again said Daniels’s testimony does not warrant a mistrial.
In the lead-up to his ruling against a mistrial, Merchan observed that there were “many times when Ms. Necheles could have objected but didn’t.” The judge acknowledged that he wished New York prosecutors hadn’t asked Daniels certain questions. But in a biting review of Necheles’s performance as Trump’s defense lawyer, Merchan cited one incident as a key example: Daniels’s allegation Tuesday that Trump did not use a condom when they had sex. Trump and his team have previously denied he had sex with Daniels. “Why on earth she wouldn’t object to the mention of a condom, I don’t understand,” Merchan said.
During her testimony Tuesday, Daniels described her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump in a way that could be viewed as unwanted, though she did not say she was assaulted. She told prosecutors that she was concerned Trump did not use a condom but that she never expressed that to him. Trump’s lawyers argued Thursday that Daniels’s testimony amounted to a “dog whistle for rape.” In ruling against the defense’s motion for a mistrial, Merchan said that prosecutors had the right to “rehabilitate” Daniels’s credibility to the jury, given that Trump’s team denies a sexual encounter ever took place. He also criticized the cross-examination for going into “ad nauseam” details about Daniels’s testimony.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
The whole thing is bullshit. This is just something New York State Court, so why is it televised? In a garden-variety state court can be televised. But we get some Salvador Dali looking courthouse sketches. Why? Because they know stormy Daniels would look like a damn wire on TV. They know merchant would come across is the biased judge that he is. They know that the prosecutors would come across as the unskilled corrupt lawyers they are.
If they actually had a case, it would be live broadcast coverage of proceedings on all three networks 24 seven.
It’s easy judge. You gavel a pause when totally unnecessary pornographic testimony from a celebrated prostiitute/s*ut starts in your courtroom, and order both attorneys to your bench. They get the picture real quick or leave your courtroom together with the witness.
It’s your courtroom and you have the responsibility for common morality there. Unfortunately you have shown the country you have no integrity.
I think they need to object in order to establish grounds for an appeal.
Just so. Here in CA it’s Evidence Code Sec 352- evidence that is more prejudicial than probative should be excluded. I assume NY is similar. Her testimony should not have been allowed at all, at the very least the particulars of the encounter should not have been allowed. It’s simply not relevant to the elements of the purported crime. Marchan knows this and he’s trying to cover his tracks by blaming the defense for not objecting enough
Trust me: I’m also one of the final arbiters.
You would have to look deep in the sewer to find where this judge was hatched.
They did.
She failed. I read the transcripts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.