The real impact of Stormy Daniels' lurid testimony: How her wild claims 'hurt' the Trump prosecution 'terribly' and left the jury 'sitting there with their sphincters tightening'

When Stormy Daniels took the stand in Donald Trump’s hush money case, her salacious testimony was a lewd story of unwanted, unprotected, blackout missionary sex nearly 20 years ago with a married celebrity who would go on to run for and become President of the United States.

Trump, now the  2024 presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is facing 34 criminal charges for falsifying business records for allegedly trying to hide the payment to Daniels before the 2016 election.

Legal experts believe Stormy Daniels' detailed testimony should not have been allowed and actually damaged the prosecution case despite her being an important witness in supporting their theory that there was an effort to violate election law.

Even Judge Juan Merchan who is presiding over the case expressed dismay for the porn star’s wild testimony, warning prosecutors ’there were some things that would've been better left unsaid.’ 

He called Daniels ‘a little difficult to control’ and her testimony ‘not easy.’

Stormy Daniels leaving the Manhattan criminal court after testifying on Tuesday in Trump's hush money case

A sketch of Daniels demonstrating the pose she claims Donald Trump was in while wearing a robe on a hotel bed in 2006 before they had sex 

Donald Trump gesturing with his fist as he returns to the criminal courtroom where Stormy Daniels was testifying in the hush money case on May 7

Daniels was visibly nervous in court. She spoke quickly and had to be told to slow down. 

Legal experts acknowledge that can go two ways: a witness who either does not talk or does not stop talking. 

Neither is helpful for a prosecutor who needs to be careful not to go out of bounds but also cannot interrupt or correct their witness.

But no matter how outlandish her story is, Daniels testified under oath that it’s all true. And she is expected to return to the stand on Thursday as cross-examination continues in the Manhattan criminal court.

Stormy’s tale of a silk robe and hotel sex

‘I think the testimony hurt the prosecution terribly,’ said Randy Zelin, an adjunct professor at Cornell Law School and trial attorney. He said it made Trump look more sympathetic and signaled the wrong message to the jury.

‘The jurors had to be sitting there with their sphincters tightening, they were so uncomfortable,’ Zelin said. ‘That testimony does nothing, nothing to further the prosecutor’s obligation… it sends a message to a juror: you don’t have it.’

Zelin said if they had to use it suggests the prosecution does not have a strong case or they would be speaking toward those details.

Stormy Daniels in 2022. She testified about a sexual encounter in court on May 7 that left even the judge saying there were 'some things that would've been better left unsaid’

‘Stormy Daniels’ testimony should not have been admitted,’ said John Yoo, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley. ‘It was far more prejudicial to Trump than it added in facts relevant to the actual legal charges here.’

After the morning’s testimony, Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche even motioned for a mistrial calling her testimony ‘extraordinarily prejudicial.’

‘The DA seeks to prove that Trump improperly accounted for the payment to Daniels, in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement, to influence the election. All of the details allowed in, including her claim that the sex was non-consensual, was not necessary to prove that point,’ Yoo said.

Judge ‘surprised’ there were not more objections

After Stormy Daniels’ took the jury on her wild ride testifying for the prosecution, Judge Merchan rejected the motion for a mistrial by Trump’s defense.

A sketch of Donald Trump sitting by his lawyer Todd Blanche as Blanche called for a mistrial following Stormy Daniels' testimony

But he did express surprise that the defense team did not object more to Daniels’ testimony.

‘In fact, at one point the court objected because there was no objection coming from the defense,’ Merchan even said.

Zelin suggested Merchan did not need to publicly express surprise and embarrass the defense team which could drive a wedge between them and their client.

He said the defense cannot use its lack of objections as a way to appeal because if a lawyer does not object, it’s waived and not legally helpful to them later.

That said, Merchan directly stating surprise could be viewed by a higher court as recognition on the judge’s part as prejudicial, so his words could be potentially used on appeal.

Overall, whether to object or not is a balancing act. Jurors do not like objections because it suggests lawyers are trying to hide something which jurors could read into. It also highlights what the lawyer is objecting to. 

For lawyers, it's sometimes a cost-benefit analysis over whether to object legal experts said. And with a quick speaking witness like Daniels, there is also the challenge of getting the objection in at the question before she jumps into a detailed account.

‘Yes’ Stormy Daniels hates Donald Trump

Perhaps one of the less damaging aspects of Stormy Daniels testimony in a counter intuitive way was when Daniels declared passionately that ‘yes’ she did hate Donald Trump from the witness stand.

The standout moment came during Daniels’ cross-examination on Tuesday when Trump’s defense attorney Susan Necheles was attempting to paint Daniels as a liar and someone looking to get rich off her story.

Necheles asked Daniels point blank if she ‘hates’ Trump. ‘Yes,’ Daniels said.

Necheles asked her if she wanted Trump to go to jail. Daniels quickly responded she wants him ‘held accountable.’

What makes this not as damaging to the prosecution, according to Zelin is that it truly appeared honest. Had she answered the question in any other way, it would have looked rehearsed with the prosecution.

Necheles quickly continued down her line of questioning after that moment without giving Daniels further chance to explain. 

It could be seized on by the prosecution to exhibit her honesty on the stand. It could also be used for closing arguments where the defense can argue Daniels has an ax to grind.

Donald Trump in court on May 7 seated next to his defense attorney Susan Necheles who cross-examined Stormy Daniels

Where do they go from here?

While Daniels was a much anticipated witness with people tuning in for porn star testimony, at its heart, the case is about documents.

According to Zelin, the only way forward for the prosecution now is to focus on the elements of the crime: the former president’s intention to hide the payment to influence the election.

Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen is still expected to testify. Zelin said he might not be likable, but he needs to testify about how ‘bad people hang out with bad people’ and give details about the alleged criminal act.

A sketch of Donald Trump looking on as Stormy Daniels testified about the settlement agreement in court on May 7

But Zelin also called the case overall an ill-advised prosecution that he never thought would go to trial. He said there are other stronger, ‘more compelling cases against Trump that ‘strike at the heart of our Democracy’ while the hush money case is ‘really ‘nonsense - tabloid fodder.’

The district attorney elicited Daniels’ testimony because the legal case is ‘so weak,’ Yoo said.