The real impact of Stormy Daniels’ lurid testimony: How her wild claims ‘hurt’ the Trump prosecution ‘terribly’ and left the jury ‘sitting there with their sphincters tightening’

When Stormy Daniels took the stand in Donald Trump’s hush money case, her salacious testimony was a lewd story about unwanted, unprotected, blackout missionary sex almost twenty years ago with a married celebrity who was going to run for president of the United States and this would be. .

Trump, now the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, faces 34 criminal charges of falsifying corporate records for allegedly trying to conceal the payment to Daniels before the 2016 election.

Legal experts believe that Stormy Daniels’ detailed testimony should not have been allowed and actually damaged the prosecution case, despite her being a key witness in supporting their theory that there was an attempt to violate election law .

Even Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the case, expressed his dismay at the porn star’s wild testimony, warning prosecutors “there were some things that could have been better left unsaid.”

He called Daniels “a little hard to control” and her testimony “not easy.”

Daniels was visibly nervous in the courtroom. She spoke quickly and was told to slow down.

Legal experts recognize that this can go two ways: a witness who doesn’t talk or who doesn’t stop talking. Neither is helpful to a prosecutor who must be careful not to overstep the boundaries, but who also cannot interrupt or correct his witness.

But as bizarre as her story is, Daniels testified under oath that it is all true. And she is expected to return to the stand Thursday as cross-examination continues in Manhattan criminal court.

Stormy’s story of a silk robe and hotel sex

“I think the testimony has terribly damaged the prosecution,” said Randy Zelin, an adjunct professor at Cornell Law School and a trial attorney. He said it made Trump look more sympathetic and that this sent the wrong message to the jury.

“The judges had to sit there with their sphincters tightened, they felt so uncomfortable,” Zelin said. “That testimony does nothing, nothing to further the prosecution’s obligation… it sends a message to a juror: You don’t have one.”

Zelin said if they had to use it, it suggests the prosecution doesn’t have a strong case or they would focus on those details.

“Stormy Daniels’ testimony should not have been admitted,” said John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “It was far more damaging to Trump than it added to the facts relevant to the actual legal charges here.”

After that morning’s testimony, Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche even requested a mistrial, calling her testimony “extremely damaging.”

“The district attorney is trying to prove that Trump improperly accounted for paying Daniels in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement to influence the election. “All the details that came out, including her claim that the sex was non-consensual, were not necessary to prove that point,” Yoo said.

Judge ‘surprised’ that there were not more objections

After Stormy Daniels took the jury on a wild ride to testify for the prosecution, Judge Merchan denied Trump’s defense motion to dismiss.

But he did express surprise that the defense team did not object more to Daniels’ testimony.

“In fact, at one point the court objected because there was no objection from the defense,” Merchan even said.

Zelin suggested that Merchan did not need to publicly express his surprise and embarrass the defense team, which could drive a wedge between them and their client.

He said the defense can’t use the lack of objections as a way to appeal because if an attorney doesn’t object, it’s waived and won’t be legally helpful to them later.

That said, Merchan directly expressing surprise could be seen by a higher court as an admission on the part of the judge as prejudicial, so his words could potentially be used on appeal.

Overall, whether or not to object is a balancing act. Jurors don’t like objections because it suggests that lawyers are trying to hide something that jurors could read into. It is also indicated what the lawyer is objecting to.

For lawyers, it’s sometimes a cost-benefit analysis about whether to object, legal experts say. And for a fast-talking witness like Daniels, there’s also the challenge of raising the objection before going into a detailed account.

‘Yes’ Stormy Daniels hates Donald Trump

Perhaps one of the less damaging aspects of Stormy Daniels’ testimony came in a counterintuitive way when Daniels passionately declared that “yes” she hated Donald Trump from the witness stand.

The standout moment came during Daniels’ cross-examination on Tuesday, when Trump’s lawyer Susan Necheles tried to portray Daniels as a liar and someone who wanted to get rich off her story.

Necheles asked Daniels point-blank if she “hates” Trump. “Yes,” said Daniels.

Necheles asked her if she wanted Trump to go to jail. Daniels quickly responded that she wants him to be “held accountable.”

What makes this not so damaging to the prosecutor, according to Zelin, is that it actually came across as honest. If she had answered the question any other way, it would have looked rehearsed with the prosecutor.

Necheles quickly continued her questions after that moment without giving Daniels any more opportunity to explain.

The prosecutor could use it to demonstrate her honesty on the stand. It can also be used for closing arguments where the defense can argue that Daniels still has a bone to pick.

Where do they go from here?

Although Daniels was a highly anticipated witness and people tuned in to testimonies from porn stars, the case is essentially about documents.

According to Zelin, the only way out for the prosecutor now is to focus on the elements of the crime: the former president’s intention to conceal the payment to influence the elections.

Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen is still expected to testify. Zelin said he may not be nice, but he should testify about how “bad people deal with bad people” and provide details about the alleged criminal act.

But Zelin also called the case overall an ill-advised prosecution that he never thought would go to trial. He said there are other stronger, “more compelling” cases against Trump that “go to the heart of our democracy,” while the hush money case is “really” nonsense — tabloid fodder.

The prosecutor elicited Daniels’ testimony because the case is “so weak,” Yoo said.