Table of Contents
When Stormy Daniels took the stand in Donald Trump’s hush money case, her salacious testimony was a salacious tale of unwanted, unprotected, unknowing missionary sex nearly 20 years ago with a married celebrity who would run for and become president of the United States. .
Trump, now the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, faces 34 criminal charges of falsifying business records for allegedly trying to hide the payment to Daniels before the 2016 election.
Legal experts believe Stormy Daniels’ detailed testimony should not have been allowed and, in fact, hurt the prosecution’s case even though she was an important witness to support their theory that there was an attempt to violate election law.
Even Judge Juan Merchán, who is presiding over the case, expressed dismay at the porn star’s wild testimony and warned prosecutors that “there were some things that would have been better left unsaid.”
He called Daniels “a little hard to control” and his testimony “not easy.”
Stormy Daniels leaves Manhattan criminal court after testifying Tuesday in the Trump hush money case.
A sketch of Daniels demonstrating the pose she claims Donald Trump was in while wearing a robe on a hotel bed in 2006 before having sex.
Donald Trump waves his fist as he returns to the criminal courtroom where Stormy Daniels was testifying in the hush money case on May 7.
Daniels was visibly nervous in court. He spoke quickly and had to be told to slow down.
Legal experts recognize that there can be two paths: a witness who either does not speak or does not stop speaking. Neither is useful to a prosecutor who must be careful not to step out of bounds but who also cannot interrupt or correct his witness.
But no matter how outlandish his story, Daniels testified under oath that it is all true. And he is expected to return to the stand Thursday as he continues cross-examination in Manhattan criminal court.
Stormy’s story about a silk robe and hotel sex
“I think the testimony was terribly damaging to the prosecution,” said Randy Zelin, an adjunct professor at Cornell Law School and a trial attorney. He said he made Trump seem more sympathetic and sent the wrong message to the jury.
“The jurors had to sit there with their sphincters strained, they felt very uncomfortable,” Zelin said. “That testimony does nothing, nothing to further the prosecutor’s liability…it sends a message to the jury: You don’t have it.”
Zelin said if they had to use it it suggests the prosecution doesn’t have a strong case or they would be talking about those details.
Stormy Daniels in 2022. She testified about a sexual encounter in court on May 7 that left even the judge saying there were “some things that would have been better left unsaid.”
“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 he added in facts relevant to the actual legal charges here.”
After the morning’s testimony, Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche even requested a mistrial calling his testimony “extraordinarily prejudicial.”
‘The district attorney seeks to prove that Trump incorrectly accounted for the payment to Daniels, in exchange for a confidentiality agreement, to influence the election. “All the permitted details, including his claim that the sex was non-consensual, were not necessary to prove that point,” Yoo said.
Judge ‘surprised’ there were no more objections
After Stormy Daniels took the jury on her wild ride testifying for the prosecution, Judge Merchan denied the mistrial motion filed by Trump’s defense.
A sketch of Donald Trump sitting next to his lawyer Todd Blanche as Blanche called for a mistrial following Stormy Daniels’ testimony.
But he did express surprise that the defense team did not further object to Daniels’ testimony.
“In fact, at one point the court objected because there was no objection from the defense,” Merchán even said.
Zelin suggested that Merchan did not need to publicly express surprise and embarrass the defense team, which could drive a wedge between them and his client.
He said the defense cannot use his lack of objections as a way to appeal because if a lawyer does not object, he is waived and will not be legally useful to him later.
That said, a higher court could view Merchan directly stating surprise as a prejudicial acknowledgment by the judge, so his words could potentially be used on appeal.
Generally, whether or not to object is a balancing act. Juries don’t like objections because they suggest that lawyers are trying to hide something that jurors might interpret. It also highlights what the lawyer is opposing.
For lawyers, it sometimes comes down to a cost-benefit analysis of whether to object, legal experts said. And with a fast-talking witness like Daniels, there’s also the challenge of articulating your objection to the question before moving on to a detailed account.
‘Yes’ Stormy Daniels hates Donald Trump
Perhaps one of the least damaging aspects of Stormy Daniels’ counterintuitive testimony was when Daniels passionately declared that she “yes” hated Donald Trump from the witness stand.
The standout moment came during Daniels’ cross-examination on Tuesday, when Trump defense attorney Susan Necheles was trying to paint Daniels as a liar and someone looking to enrich himself from his story.
Necheles asked Daniels directly if he “hates” Trump. “Yes,” Daniels said.
Necheles asked him if he wanted Trump to go to jail. Daniels quickly responded that she wants to hold him “accountable.”
What makes this not so damaging to the prosecution, according to Zelin, is that he actually seemed honest. If he had answered the question any other way, it would have seemed rehearsed with the prosecution.
Necheles quickly continued his line of questioning after that moment without giving Daniels any further opportunity to explain himself.
The prosecution could take advantage of this to demonstrate their honesty on the stand. It could also be used for closing arguments where the defense can argue that Daniels has something to do.
Donald Trump in court on May 7 sitting next to his defense attorney Susan Necheles who cross-examined Stormy Daniels.
Where do they go from here?
While Daniels was a much-awaited witness for people listening to a porn star’s testimony, at its core, the case is about documents.
According to Zelin, the only way forward now for the prosecution is to focus on the elements of the crime: the former president’s intention to hide the payment to influence the elections.
Former Trump fixer Michael Cohen is still expected to testify. Zelin said it may not be nice, but he needs to testify about how “bad people hang out with bad people” and give details about the alleged criminal act.
A sketch of Donald Trump looking on as Stormy Daniels testified about the settlement agreement in court on May 7.
But Zelin also called the case overall a reckless prosecution that he never thought would go to trial. He said there are other stronger, more compelling cases against Trump that ‘strike at the heart of our democracy,’ while the hush money case is ‘really bunk, tabloid fodder.’
The district attorney obtained Daniels’ testimony because the legal case is “very weak,” Yoo said.
