Follow the latest developments in former President Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial in New York.

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.”

      • DeepThought42@lemmy.worldEnglish
        81·
        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·
          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.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          7·
          6 months ago

          Can they file for a miss trail on the grounds that they themselves didn’t do the thing that’s expected of them in the time it was expected for them to do it.

          Surely a lawyer can’t deliberately do a bad job, and then file for a mistrial.

          • DeepThought42@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            6 months ago

            As far as I’m aware nothing will stop them from trying to do that. It’s up to the judge (or judges if it goes to an appeal) to decide whether their argument makes sense. While I’d hope that a competent judge will see their shenanigans for what it is, I have no doubt that someone has made that strategy work at some point.

            To be clear, I’m not a lawyer, so naturally don’t take my word for it.

        • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
          6·
          6 months ago

          That’s exactly what they were aiming for. It was their hail Mary because they know they don’t have an actual defense

      • slickgoat@lemmy.world
        31·
        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·
          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.

      • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
        21·
        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

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        8·
        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.

    • hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world
      10·
      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.

  • RagingSnarkasm@lemmy.world
    108·
    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

  • Windex007@lemmy.world
    70·
    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?

        • macarthur_park@lemmy.world
          25·
          6 months ago

          Maybe he could if he didn’t blow all his money on avocado toast paying hush money to porn stars. Oh and the defamation civil suits with the woman he raped…

          • slickgoat@lemmy.world
            6·
            6 months ago

            Don’t forget he stiffed Michael Cohen out of some of those hush money payments. It was probably a reflective move from a lifetime of dumping on friends.

        • wjrii@lemmy.worldEnglish
          18·
          6 months ago

          This, but only partly because of his own wealth/liquidity. He’s a difficult client, late at paying his bills, and being associated with him smears your name with half the country, including even a not-insignificant percentage of rich assholes…

          From the lawyers that don’t reject him at any hourly rate, he’s likely now getting the “Fuck you” price, where you don’t want the job but you put out a crazy number to avoid simply saying no.

        • scops@reddthat.comEnglish
          11·
          6 months ago

          Been following the NYT live coverage for most of the day. The defense claimed that they did not object more because there was intense discussion before the jury was brought in for the day about what the prosecution could cover in Daniels’ testimony. The defense believed that the questions asked were following what the prosecution and judge had agreed upon and that their objections would not be received well.

          It’s a flimsy justification, but that was their response during the mistrial discussion.

          • Granite@kbin.social
            9·
            6 months ago

            Well, that’s a spin! And one I don’t buy fully. Make the objections anyway and get shot down, but I personally think they wanted the mistrial motion, which they had to know also wouldn’t work…

        • tacosplease@lemmy.world
          3·
          6 months ago

          That’s what I believe they are doing. Trump has decent lawyers for his criminal trial. They’re ruining their credibility as good lawyers, but they absolutely DO understand the law.

          They knew they could object but chose not to so they could file for a mistrial. Of course, as has been pointed out, defense would have needed to object at the time. But they have to try something. Shit like this seems to buy them delay time more often than not.

    • mad_asshatter@lemmy.worldOP
      36·
      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

      • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
        10·
        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

        • extant@lemmy.worldEnglish
          6·
          6 months ago

          I agree with you, but that’s exactly what they did. As others like to point out the only play he has to get away with his alleged activities is to delay until after the election, if he wins then his legal problems magically all go away or he loses and we find out if he stays to finish any legal battle or he goes the route of Edward Snowdon.

      • rusticus@lemm.ee
        5·
        6 months ago

        But the defendent is in prison during the appeal. Not sure they thought that through.

    • hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world
      7·
      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.

    • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
      1·
      6 months ago

      That’s a good point, I remember a challenge to voir dire only happened when a defendant insisted his attorney object during selection.

  • vividspecter@lemm.ee
    37·
    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.

  • solrize@lemmy.world
    13·
    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·
      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.