I knew it was rigged long before that. The case was about accounting records, i.e., whether they were misleading to conceal the settlement agreement with SD. The existence of the agreement was not disputed. The truth or falsity of SD’s claims made not one difference to the charges. Yet Merchan let her testify as to what underwear he was wearing (and yes, PDJT’s lawyers objected to the testimony, contrary to Merchan’s lies). I can’t think of a more textbook example of irrelevant and highly prejudicial testimony being allowed in in violation of the accused’s rights. So why did Merchan do it? Because if PDJT testified in his own defense, the prosecution would have been allowed to cross-examine him to try to support SD’s testimony. As his lawyer, would you have allowed PDJT to take the stand knowing that was coming?
No. I think Merchan's jury instructions were more outrageous than allowing SD's testimony, because the instructions literally told the jury a lie that was calculated to make the jury believe Trump was guilty. Both actions by the judge were wrong.