In the trial against Trump, many details that were unpleasant for him came to light. But that could turn out to be lucky for him.
When the porn actress Stormy Daniels, real name Stephanie Clifford, reveals herself in court, things get explosive. Maybe too explosive. Because in the trial, which is actually about a falsely declared hush money payment from Donald Trump to Daniels, the 45-year-old reported in detail on Tuesday about her one-night stand with the 45th President of the United States.
What’s particularly piquant is the detail that Daniels probably didn’t want to have sexual intercourse with Trump. For Trump’s lawyers, this statement went too far. They argue that the details of the night 20 years ago have nothing to do with the actual case, but could give the jury a negative impression of Trump and thus influence their verdict. Read more about Daniel’s statement here.
Weinstein verdict overturned
The judge in charge rejected a request to terminate the negotiations, but Trump’s legal team could try to have the verdict overturned if their client is found guilty based on Daniel’s statement. A US court recently overturned a rape conviction against Harvey Weinstein because his trial also included witnesses whose statements did not relate to the case being tried.
Loading…
Embed
In his decision against terminating the proceedings, the judge responsible argued that the explicit depiction of the sexual encounter was necessary because Trump had repeatedly denied that it even took place and thus undermined the witness’s credibility.
Trump’s defense could have intervened
In addition, the defense would have had the chance to stop Daniel’s statements by citing the lack of relevance to the trial, but they did not do so. Still, the judge also admits that Daniels may have been a little too revealing in her testimony.
In the United States, there are strict rules about what evidence and testimony can be heard in court. For example, it is forbidden to use statements that refer to the defendant’s previous crimes or are simply intended to give the jury the impression that the defendant has a bad character.
Overturning a judgment has a high hurdle
Anna G. Cominsky, a law professor at New York Law School, believes it is very likely that Trump’s lawyers will challenge a possible conviction, but it is not easy to actually have a conviction overturned.
“The real question is, even if the judge erred in his decision, whether that provides a basis for overturning the verdict on appeal, and that is a high hurdle,” Cominsky said in the Washington Post. The decision to overturn the Weinstein verdict was also only made in a very narrow 4:3 decision by the court.
