Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan in 2011.. - Marc A. Hermann/New York Daily News/TNS
Adult film star Stormy Daniels testified in Donald Trump's criminal trial on Tuesday about her brief encounter and the hush money scheme that followed years later — and the ex-president's lawyers argued the details were so salacious they should never have gone before a jury.
Trump is on trial in Manhattan for falsifying business records to conceal the funds he sent to Daniels from the public at a time he was running for president.
Daniels spoke in great detail about Trump pursuing her, meeting her at his door in "silk or satin pajamas," and ultimately what unfolded in the hotel room during their two-hour "dinner."
Legal experts online and on MSNBC agreed there was an "ick factor" to the testimony about the ex-president. Judge Juan Merchan also agreed, asking that she limit the details in her testimony.
ALSO READ: Trump’s Manhattan trial could determine whether rule of law survives: criminologist
When Trump's lawyers came back from a lunch break they demanded a mistrial, claiming Daniels went so far outside the scope of the case itself and the hush money details. There was a back and forth with the judge, who ultimately agreed that the witness came close to the line, but that it didn't merit a mistrial.
Merchan then noted that Trump's lawyers were remarkably quiet during her testimony — which they found objectionable.
New York Daily News reporter Molly Crane-Newman tweeted that Merchan hinted that he would have done more to stop Daniels had Trump's lawyers objected more.
“I will also note that I was also surprised there were not more objections,” he told the court. “Defense has to take some responsibility for that. The court has done everything [it] can possibly do."
Trump's lawyer, Susan Necheles, pushed back, but Merchan said, “We'll have to agree to disagree.”
Speaking to CNN during the trial, former Federal Judge Nancy Gertner agreed with Merchan, saying that Trump's lawyers should have done much more.
"They could object, move to sidebar, move to strike," she said.
"...The judge was saying, where were you in all of this?"
She went on, "When you said that the defense lawyers objected to some and then stopped objecting, that also could be a strategic decision, which is that you don't want to highlight the testimony," she said of Trump's defense team. "If you're jumping up and down and screaming about it, then you wind up highlighting it more than it would otherwise. So, they may have done this as a strategic manner. And then there are defense lawyers who can invite a mistrial."
She explained that it clearly wasn't effective, but anticipates that the judge will be asked to revisit the decision.
Trump maintains his innocence of the 34 felony charges.
See the video of Gertner below or at the link here.
Judge reveals why Trump lawyers weren't objecting to every second of Stormy testimony www.youtube.com
Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.
For customer support contact support@rawstory.com.
