261
submitted 6 months ago by dogsnest@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 272 points 6 months ago
[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 74 points 6 months ago

I have a feeling he doesn't have the best lawyers representing him.

[-] DeepThought42@lemmy.world 81 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

"I was surprised that there were not more objections," from the defense team he added. "At one point, the court ... objected, because there was no objection coming from the defense."

Either they are bad lawyers or they were strategically withholding their objections in order to file the mistrial motion. I fully expect this to be brought up again in an appeal, assuming Trump loses the case.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 29 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Convicted defendents in New York stay in prison during the appeal process. But of course we wont see that fucking happen because money reasons.

[-] Granite@kbin.social 16 points 6 months ago

May it be too late for CheeseTurd by then.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 36 points 6 months ago

Yes, but also in their defense they don't have the best client. It's like they deserve each other.

[-] slickgoat@lemmy.world 32 points 6 months ago

I've been following this trial very closely. Trump is the problem. He demands that his lawyers challenge everything very aggressively. He is enraged if his counsel accepts even trivial facts that make no difference either way. The bigger question is why they put up with his tantrums.

Money, probably...

[-] baldingpudenda@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

He's not gonna pay. He'll say he lost so why pay. He's got almost 500 million on bond for business fraud, 5 million for rape of Ms. Carroll, I think I'm missing another big one, and he's freaking out at donors for not giving enough.

He's got no field offices set up and only really doing campaign rallies, if you don't count the desperate emails begging for donations. The only thing keeping his "campaign" going right now is the cult.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago

If he paid lawyers, he might get good ones.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 30 points 6 months ago

"But Merchan says he was also surprised there were not more objections from the defense and that, at one point, he stepped in of his own accord to restrict Daniels’ testimony."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/may/07/donald-trump-hush-money-trial-fine-gag-order-violations-live?page=with:block-663a734d8f08de1164c8978e&filterKeyEvents=false#liveblog-navigation

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Blanche was actually a pretty respected prosecutor turned defense attorney, its surprising he took the case unless he wanted to get out of law and this was his swansong before transitioning to some sweet talkinghead gig or other well-paid right-wing political operative role

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Yeah historically they like being paid and really aren’t jumping at the chance to do polarizing work for free

[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 7 points 6 months ago

Blanche used to be a respected lawyer. I hope the payday was enough to pay for the reputational damage he's taking.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago

lol get fucked traitors

[-] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago
[-] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I was gonna say, that's hilarious but nah. I think that's what the judge thinks as well.

Legally speaking that's some bullshit.

[-] A_A@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

Saving us clicks : many thanks :)

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

"I don't believe we are at the point where a mistrial is warranted," Merchan said.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 125 points 6 months ago

Objection!

On what grounds?

It's devastating to my case!

[-] RagingSnarkasm@lemmy.world 108 points 6 months ago

"Your Honor! How can my client possibly get a fair trial after the jury has heard what he did? This bell can not be unrung!"

--Trump's Laywers, probably

[-] saddlebag@lemmy.world 35 points 6 months ago

| Trump’ lawyers actually

[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 70 points 6 months ago

I'm not a lawyer, so interested in learning...

Isn't this what the purpose of objecting is? If the defense fails to object while it's happening... Isn't that kinda on them?

[-] dogsnest@lemmy.world 36 points 6 months ago

Yes. The judge pointed it out to them:

"I was surprised that there were not more objections" from the defense team, the judge added.

"At one point, the court ... objected, because there was no objection coming from the defense," he said

[-] Granite@kbin.social 39 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Because this was their plan all along.

Edit: request already rejected, but I’m sure they’ll mention it on appeal.

[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 25 points 6 months ago

That's fine.

Convicts in New York start their sentence during the criminal appeal process.

[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 26 points 6 months ago

Is the second quote saying that the judge stepped in because the defense was being so shit?

[-] dogsnest@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] extant@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

If you object and stop it you can't ask for a mistrial.

[-] LanternEverywhere@kbin.social 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

IANAL but if you don't object you still can't ask for a mistrial unless you argue that the defense given by the lawyers was literally incompetent, and I'm far from an expert but i think that's a pretty hard bar to reach. Especially if pre-trial they would put that lawyer on the stand and ask why they didn't object during the testimony but only complained after the testimony, and i can't imagine any valid argument that would be accepted by a court.

Bottom line, I'm not an expert at all, but if they purposely didn't object so that they could ask for a mistrial, I'm pretty sure that won't work at all

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Yes. Mistrial is only even something irreversible happens and the trial became unfair. If you didn't call bullshit at the time, you are not allowed to complain about everything later. And because you didn't object, there's also no preserved issue for appeal.

Btw I think the judge would be able to base their opinion in latches. But I might be wrong.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] vividspecter@lemm.ee 35 points 6 months ago

Trump lawyer: I move for a bad court thingy.

Judge: You mean a mistrial?

Trump lawyer: Yeah. That's why you're the judge and I'm the law talking guy.

Judge: The lawyer.

Trump lawyer: Right.

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 6 months ago

"Your Honor, I move that I be disbarred for introducing this evidence against my own clients. "

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] solrize@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Interesting. Harvey Weinstein's conviction in New York was thrown out over something like that. He is likely to be retried there though, and his California conviction still stands.

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 24 points 6 months ago

In Weinstein's case the prosecution brought in testimony from women who weren't part of the charges that were actually being tried, though, which is a pretty big difference from what happened here. Clifford is kind of central to this case.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
261 points (95.5% liked)

News

23376 readers
1808 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS