Dramatic, sometimes
explicit testimony
from Stormy Daniels in the Trump trial
that set off a mistrial motion
from Donald Trump's
legal defense team,
a request Judge Merchan denied.
Want to bring back CNN legal
analyst Elliott Williams
for a closer look.
Elliott, walk us through
what needs to happen
for a judge to declare a mistrial.
Absolutely, Wolf.
And it's a very important
aspect of trials that happens here.
What is a mistrial?
So a court
and this is right
out of New York state law.
A court must declare a mistrial
if number one,
there's a legal defect
in the proceedings.
This big word,
if it's
prejudicial to the defendant
and deprives them of a fair trial.
It's not just something that's a mistake.
It's something that is a mistake
that's so bad that the defendant's
trial was impaired.
Now, what was it today
that got us here in the first place?
And I'll warn everybody,
some of these words are
are adult words, but here we go.
There was one talking about
sort of what sexual possession
might have happened
in this alleged affair
when Stormy Daniels was testifying today.
There was a few references
to having her having blacked out
was the language used.
Also,
she testified about his
the size of his body and his behavior
that saying that he was several inches
taller and much larger than she was,
that there was an imbalance of power
between the two of them,
that he was bigger and blocking the way
all of these things suggested
and to some extent
perhaps a consent
question that, quite frankly,
even if serious,
is not at issue in this trial
and might have,
at least as the argument was impaired,
the defendant's ability
to get a fair trial.
So the defense
then moved for a mistrial, saying
this is Todd Blanch, the attorney
for the former president, saying
this has nothing to do with the trial.
And this was very carefully
chosen language,
extraordinarily prejudicial.
He had to say that
he put that on the record
so that if they lose this trial
and he ends up getting convicted,
they've reserved the right to appeal.
And that he has to say that
at this stage of the proceedings,
he has to make an argument like that.
In addition,
he also made the point
that this is the kind of testimony
that it's impossible to come back
from very strong language
about the fact
that the defendant was prejudiced
in the eyes of the law.
Now, the judge in ruling
did say he agreed with Mr.
Blanch, but that some things were
and this is
you don't want a judge to ever say this.
There are some things
that probably would have been
better left unsaid.
Now, this is what he said
in denying the mistrial,
saying that we're at a point
I don't think that a
mistrial is warranted.
He also said and sort of
sort of
went after the defense
a little bit here, saying
when the bell has been wrong,
when that language is out there,
the defense has to take
some responsibility.
He was saying that the defense didn't
file enough objections in real time.
So where do we go from here?
A couple next steps for everybody.
The Trump team will almost certainly,
I can assure you, move
for another mistrial
before the end of this trial.
After the close of evidence.
They're going to put this
on the record again
so that if they appeal,
they have the right to go there again.
Number two,
the judge will give
what are called
limiting instructions to the jury
when he instructs the jury
at the end of the trial saying,
disregard all the other nonsense.
You can consider
whether these two individuals had sex,
but leave it at that.
It's sort of silly
because the jury's already heard it.
And then finally,
if the former president loses,
they're going to appeal.
They'll take it up to the New York
appellate court
or the New York Court of Appeals,
the highest court in the state.
And that's how mistrials work there.
Eliot?
Excellent explanation.
Thank you very, very much.
Eliot Williams helping us.
I want to get some more
now from former U.S.
District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin.
Judge Scheindlin,
thank you so much,
as usual, for joining us.
Judge Merchan
denied this motion for a mistrial,
as you know,
while acknowledging that
some testimony today went too far.
First of all, do you agree with
his decision?
I agree that some of the
testimony went too far,
and I fully understand
why he was
not going
to grant a mistrial at this stage.
There's a lot
that has been invested in this trial,
and he feels
that the prejudice can be cured.
I'm not so sure. That's totally right.
As your previous guest
said, it's hard to unring the bell
or the genie's out of the bottle.
The jury heard it all,
and I'm sure it affects them.
And of course,
the details that she spoke about
have nothing to do
with the charges in this case.
So it was extraneous.
It shouldn't have been said.
The witness went off on her own.
And I'm sure that was more
than the prosecution
had expected her to say.
But there it is. It's on the record.
Yes, it is.
Judge Merchan scolded Stormy Daniels
for going off
topic at one point,
telling her to
and I'm quoting
now, just answer the questions.
He raised objections himself
on the defense's behalf.
Did he do enough, do you think, Judge,
to rein in today's testimony?
I think he did
everything he could, meaning
he sustained a number
of the defense objections.
And when they didn't object
and he thought they should,
he did it himself.
Which judges are known to do?
I have done that.
Sometimes
the judge says objection sustained
when there was none.
So the record looks like
somebody might have stood up
or raised their hand.
But the judge says objection sustained.
So he tried to protect the record
by shutting her down
and closing off some of the material.
But she sure got a lot of dirt out.
And the purpose
seems to be to have painted
the defendant
as a very unpleasant person,
not for political reasons,
but for his way he treats women.
And this may have a real impact
on at least women jurors,
and I'm sure some of the men, too.
So it seemed pretty
calculated on her part to
besmirch him,
shall we say, to paint him
as a very bad man.
Look, while I have you a judge,
I want to quickly discuss Trump's
classified documents case down in Florida
while I have you.
The judge
there is indefinitely
postponing the trial
and letting trump air unfounded theories
about the prosecution
in a hearing next month.
Was this the right call?
Well, never the right call.
She's been slow walking.
This as somebody again said tonight
for a long, long time.
She has eight undecided motions.
She could have ruled on
half of them by now,
but she doesn't rule.
She puts it all off.
Then she says there are many
complex issues
regarding classified documents.
And that's true.
But if she had done her job,
there wouldn't be eight left.
There might be three,
and she could set a trial date.
Instead, she says, Well, May is out.
Everybody agrees to that at this point,
may be July or August,
but that's getting very
close to September,
which is really too close
to the election.
So I think
I think that it's obvious to everybody
we are not going to have a trial
on this case.
The documents case before the election.
I suspect you're right.
The judge cherishes them.
Thank you very much, as usual.