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 ...
Now if the defendants note the judge is allowing rules violation, why should they object? That is mistrial in the making.
“Judge” Wetback Cur, cartel stooge from Colombia.
Be a shame if Canadian sealers mistook Wetback Cur for a baby Harp seal during season...
Read the transcripts. The defense objected continuously and were over ruled.
If the Trump defense raised objections to the Daniel’s testimony, the jury would have interpreted that as wanting to hide evidence.
Provided what you say is true it not only looks like a mistrial in the making, it is blatant reason to overturn any conviction.
But from what I’m reading the goal of this lawfare is for the Rats to be able to say Trump was “convicted”.
He knows..That’s why he was pissed with Trump’s attorney...She is one smart cookie...Setting up the mistrial.....
The attorneys predicted what would happen before she testified and asked the judge not to let her testify or to speak explicitly. Now this goofy ass will be blames them for not objecting. What a total POS that guy is.
Because Judge Juan Merchan sat and let the Stormy Daniels testimony go on, he set the trial up for an appeal that will win for the Trump defense.
Bull judge. You know very well that appeal courts frown upon continuous objections in the record. They prefer one at the beginning, one in the middle, and one at the end. That is all it takes.
If he’s here legally, he’s not a “wet-back”, although he certainly is someone’s stooge but probably a willing one.
They objected her testimony before she even began.
Trump’s attorney should have been objecting in real time.
Supreme court my ass.
correct. The judge is responsible.
The case was always going to be thrown out as an ex post facto case; so, the judge is just doing his job of using the case to attack Trump politically.
I have no doubt that Trump’s attorneys objected unsuccessfully multiple times and did so in categorical terms, even risking sanction for multiple, repetitive objections on the same grounds. The judge is a weasel who is trying to shift blame for a train wreck of a trial, with Stormy Daniels’ testimony bringing discredit on the court and a solid basis for a mistrial and reversal on appeal if it is not granted.
How do we deal with these renegade corrupt judges
(Note: I was going to reply 'all' but I'm conscious of the fact that some might not want to be pinged with said content. IMHO, deleting this comment with the transcript in question would be egregiously wrong despite the content, as well as hitting the abuse button. This is what happened in the courtroom and it deserves to be posted. That stated, I'm not a moderator):
In a court transcript that Mediaite has obtained, her full account of the encounter is revealed to be distressing and intense but rarely explicit and marked by consistent objections by Trump’s attorneys:
A. When I came out of the bathroom, I expected to exit, go around the bed and back out to where we had been sitting and talking and hopefully say; Okay, time to go, I have been here for a long time. That was actually when I realized how long I had been there. And when I opened the bathroom door to come out, Mr. Trump had come into the bedroom and was on the bed, basically between myself and the exit. Q. What was he wearing at the time?Source:A. His boxer shorts and t-shirt.
Q. What was your reaction to seeing him like that?
A. At first, I was just startled, like jump scare. I wasn’t expecting someone to be there, especially minus a lot of clothing. That’s when I had that moment where I felt the room spin in slow motion. I felt the blood basically leave my hands and my feet and almost like if you stand up too fast, and everything kind of spinned, that happened too. Then I just thought, oh, my God, what did I misread to get here. Because the intention was pretty clear, somebody stripped down in their underwear and posing on the bed, like waiting for you.
Q. What happened when you came out of the bathroom, did he stay on the bed?
A. When I exited, he was just up on the bed like this
(indicating).
Q. What happened after that?
A. And I went to step around. I laughed nervously, and, you know, tried to make a joke out of it, and step around and leave. Even though I was moving like I was in a funhouse, like slow motion. I thought to myself; Great. I put myself in this bad situation, like what did I do, how did I misread everything. He stood up between me and the door, not in a threatening manner. He didn’t come at me. He didn’t rush at me. He didn’t put his hands on me and nothing like that. I said, I got to go. He said, I thought we were getting somewhere, we were talking, and I thought you were serious about what you wanted. If you ever want to get out of that trailer park — basically, I was offended because I never lived in a trailer park.
THE COURT: Sustained. Move along.
THE WITNESS: I am sorry, Judge. I don’t understand.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Q. You were both standing up at this time?
A. Yes.
Q. And what happened next, briefly?
A. I just think I blacked out. I was not drugged. I never insinuated that I was on drugs. I was not drunk. I never said anything of that sort. I just don’t remember —
MS. NECHELES: I object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. Did you at some point —
THE COURT: Please approach.
(Whereupon, proceedings were held at sidebar:)
THE COURT: Tell me what your objection is?
MS. NECHELES: She is making it sound like she was drugged.
MS. HOFFINGER: She said she wasn’t drugged.
MS. NECHELES: She said she is dizzy, she blacked out.
THE COURT: I got the impression she was saying she wasn’t drugged. She is not suggesting she was drugged. I sustained your objection. If you want — I got the impression — Do you want to consult with the other lawyers.
MS. HOFFINGER: I can clarify, if you would like.
MS. NECHELES: I think it should be clarified. She is not saying she was not.
MS. HOFFINGER: Sure, I can do that.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. HOFFINGER:
Q. I want to clarify and ask you to slow down so the reporter can understand you. Were you saying you were not drugged in any way; is that correct?
A. Correct. Q. You had not had any alcohol in any way?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And that’s what you were trying to convey?
A. Yes.
Q. So, he was standing up and you were standing up. What were your relative heights?
A. I am 5’6″, 5’7″, and I don’t know how tall he was, definitely several inches taller and much larger.
Q. But you said you didn’t feel threatened; is that right?
MS. NECHELES: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Did you feel threatened by him?
A. No, not physically. Although, I did note there was a bodyguard right outside the door. There was an imbalance of power for sure. He was bigger and blocking the way. But, I mean, I was not threatened verbally or physically.
Q. Can you briefly describe, at some point, did you end up on the bed having sex?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you very briefly describe where you had sex with him?
A. The next thing I know, I was on the bed, somehow on the opposite side of the bed from where we had been standing. I had my clothes and shoes off. I believe my bra, however, was still on. We were in the missionary position.
MS. NECHELES: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Without describing the position, do you remember how your clothes got off?
A. No.
Q. Is that a memory that has not come back to you?
MS. NECHELES: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. You don’t at this point remember; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And did you end up having sex with him on the bed?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you know — withdrawn. Do you have a recollection of feeling something unusual that you have a memory of?
MS. NECHELES: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. What, if anything — do you remember anything other than the fact that you had sex on the bed?
A. I was staring at the ceiling. I didn’t know how I got there. I made note, like I was trying to think about anything other than what was happening there.
MS. NECHELES: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. NECHELES: I move to strike.
THE COURT: The answer is stricken.
Q. Did you touch his skin?
A. Yes.
MS. NECHELES: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
Q. Was he wearing a condom?
A. No.
Q. Was that concerning to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you say anything about it?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. I didn’t say anything at all.
Q. Do you recall how it ended, the sex?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it brief?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember at some point getting dressed?
A. Yes.
Q. And tell us what you recall about getting dressed?
A. Sitting on end of the bed, noticing that it was completely dark outside now, and that it was — it was really hard to get my shoes on, my hands were shaking so hard. I had on tiny little — they was strappy gold heels with little tiny buckles. My hands were shaking so hard. I was having a hard time getting dressed. He said, “Oh, great. Let’s get together again honey bunch. We were great together.” I just wanted to leave.
Q. Did you say no at any time during sex with him?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because I didn’t say anything at all.
Q. Did you notice afterwards a DVD on the side table?
A. Yes. The DVD I had given him earlier in the gift bag from the show was on the nightstand, that I signed.
Q. When you were leaving and you went to leave, what, if anything, did you do or say?
A. He said, “We have to get together again soon.” He went to kiss me goodbye. I just left as fast as I could. You know, that was it.
Q. Did he say anything to you about talking again?
A. Yes. He said, “We should get together again. We were fantastic together. I want to get you on the show.” And that was it. He didn’t give me anything. He didn’t offer to pay me or anything or a cell phone number or anything like that.
Q. Did he ask you to keep your encounter with him confidential?
A. No.
Q. Did he express any concern at that point about his wife finding out?
A. No.
Q. Did you end up having dinner in his room that night?
A. No.
Q. You said it was dark out when you left?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall how you got back to your hotel?
A. It was a cab.
Q. After that night, did you tell anybody else about what happened?
A. Yes.
Q. Just give us a sense of the people that you told and what you told them?
A. I told very few people that we had actually had sex because I felt ashamed that I didn’t stop it, that I didn’t say no. A lot of people would just assume — they would make jokes out of it. I didn’t think it was funny. I didn’t want to hear about it, or assume that I was paid prostitute, which I wasn’t. So I told very few people. I also didn’t want it to get back to anybody that I was dating.
MS. NECHELES: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
The judge sustained many defense objections — including one that wasn’t even made by the defense. Merchan noted that “in fact, at one point the Court sua sponte objected because there was no objection coming from the defense.”
The defense found the testimony so damaging they argued for a mistrial. Attorney Todd Blanche cited the trailer park crack and a list of other details and told Judge Merchan, “All of this has nothing to do with this case. And it’s extraordinarily prejudicial, and it’s something that is — the only reason why the Government asked those questions, aside from pure embarrassment, is to — is to inflame this jury to not — to not look at the evidence that matters, but to just hear from this witness.”
Merchan denied the motion for a mistrial.
Since it is a kangaroo court....
we impanal a peoples grand jury and hold court over him, our own kangaroo court.
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.