Judge Juan Merchan criticized former President Donald Trump’s defense team for not raising more objections during Stormy Daniels’ testimony, as they filed a motion for a mistrial on Thursday. Trump attorney Todd Blanche claimed that Daniels changed her story by suggesting that an alleged encounter with Trump might not have been consensual, adding that the defense was unaware of these questions until they heard them in court.
Merchan, who denied the motion for a mistrial, pointed out that Trump’s defense team missed several opportunities to object to Daniels’ testimony. This was the second time during the trial that Merchan had indicated surprise at the defense’s lack of objections.
One example of questionable testimony involved Daniels’ comment about living in a trailer park. Daniels suggested that Trump told her she would be “stuck living in a trailer park” if she did not have sex with him in 2006. Merchan noted that this was an unnecessary detail, and he even objected himself in response to the defense’s inaction.
Another point that the judge raised was Daniels’ claim that Trump did not wear a condom during their alleged encounter. Merchan found it surprising that defense attorney Susan Necheles didn’t object to this assertion, considering it opened the door to further detailed questioning about the nature of their interaction.
Merchan also referenced the defense’s opening statement in which Blanche denied that any sexual encounter occurred between Daniels and Trump. The judge pointed out that this assertion allowed the prosecution to pursue further questioning to prove Daniels’ credibility and the details of the alleged encounter. The more specifics Daniels could provide, the judge stated, the more it would support the prosecution’s narrative and help the jury assess the truth of her story.
Merchan highlighted that the defense team’s lack of objections might affect the jury’s perception of the case, potentially undermining their own argument. The judge’s comments underscored the importance of proactive defense in a high-profile trial like this one, where small details could have a significant impact on the outcome.
