Judge permits Stormy Daniels to testify on non-relevant, scandalous information to embarrass Trump
Before the start of the Manhattan prosecution of former president Donald Trump, the case of District Attorney Alvin Bragg was described as being based on an obscenity standard.
In a 1984 pornography case, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said, “I shall not today attempt further to define [obscenity]. . . . But I know it when I see it.”
Bragg has chosen not to clearly define the crime that Trump is accused of concealing through his payments for a non-disclosure agreement listed as a legal expense.
The trial is expected to reveal the crime when observed firsthand.
However, recent developments suggest that Bragg is now prosecuting a case that can be considered an actual obscenity case.
The prosecution has pushed to call porn star Stormy Daniels to the stand and extract lurid details about her alleged encounter with Trump.
Despite the assurance that they would not delve into specifics about genitalia, Judge Juan Merchan allowed the prosecutors to question Daniels about the affair details.
The defense objected to the details being discussed in court, but Merchan permitted it, suggesting it was not relevant to any criminal theory being pursued.
It is uncontested that Trump wanted to prevent the disclosure of his affair with Daniels through the NDA payments.
The sensational and provocative nature of Daniels’ testimony was apparent, but Merchan allowed it to continue.
Merchan is considering instructing the jury to disregard certain aspects of the testimony, but this does not mitigate the impact of Daniels’ statements.
In New York, Daniels’ relevance or credibility as a witness is not a significant factor, as evidenced by the decision to allow her testimony in Trump’s trial.
The case against Trump continues to raise questions about the legal system’s use of potentially irrelevant or prejudicial evidence.
As the trial unfolds, the focus on Daniels’ testimony highlights the entertainment value for many in New York, despite the serious legal implications for Trump.
Overall, the proceedings in the courtroom with Daniels testify are becoming increasingly controversial and questionable in terms of legal and ethical standards.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School, reflects on the ongoing trial and the challenges it poses for both the defense and the prosecution.
