A tightrope walk by Donald Trump’s lawyers let the jury hear damaging evidence because they were afraid it would seem their client had “something to hide” — and that’s seriously dented their case, an expert said.
In a Saturday report Paul Golden, a partner at the New York law firm Coffey Modica, said the “balancing act” performed by attorney Susan Necheles gave the jury damaging evidence — and may have blown any hope of an appeal.
It even left Judge Juan Merchan bemused.
“I don’t understand,” he said.
Trump is standing trial on 34 charges of business fraud involving hush money payments allegedly paid to an adult movie actress he allegedly had a sexual relationship with.
The judge spoke after Trump’s team asked for a mistrial, claiming salacious evidence was given to the jury by witness and adult movie star Stormy Daniels which should not have been allowed.
Daniels gave graphic details about a sexual tryst she claims she had with Trump, and included details such as that the former president didn’t wear a condom.
ALSO READ: ‘Morality does not exist for him’: Remembering Ted Cruz’s epic Trump rant
But Merchan said it was down to the lawyers to stop it through objections — and they didn’t.
"But for the life of me, I don't know why Ms. Necheles didn't object," he said.
"Why on earth she wouldn't object to a mention of a condom, I don't understand.
"I agree, that shouldn't have come out. I wish those questions hadn't been asked, and I wish those answers hadn't been given.”
Golden said that the Trump team, like any trial attorneys, is involved in a "balancing act" while objecting to testimony.
Golden said the lawyers thought objecting would hurt their case.
If a lawyer "objects too much to testimony, it may make it appear to the jury that his client has something to hide,” he told Newsweek.
"But if he does not object at the right times, then there is a danger that irrelevant and prejudicial evidence will be admitted, and an appellate court may rule that the particular issue is not preserved for appeal," he said.
"That's because an appellate court will not consider an appeal based on a witness' testimony unless an objection was first raised with the trial judge.”
