RANCH
United we stand, divided we fall.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 18,080
- Reaction score
- 37,804
I'm not understanding your comment about the defense asking Stormy if she knew anything about the business records.Also. She wouldn't have testified at all hadn't Blanche (no doubt at the insistence of his client) claim in his opening argument that DJT and she never had sex.
If he hadn't claimed that, there was no reason for the prosecution to call her as a witness, since obviously she would have known nothing about the business records.
But he did, so she was called as a witness, and the cross examination insofar as I've heard reported, focused on petty details about how she got to the hotel and whether she did or did not get dinner. In other words, whether she was lying about the sexual encounter--which has no bearing on the charges.
It might have been reported elsewhere, but as far as I know the defense never once asked her whether she knew anything about his business records.
That one question would have gotten her off the witness stand instantly because her reply would have obviously been no.
Yet AFAIK they never asked about that.
IANAL but it seems like a weird strategy to me.
You say that the defense asking about it would have gotten her off the witness stand instantly. How would doing that after the state had got all of the salacious testimony from her help their case? It would be too late.
Also the jury would wonder why they asked a question that she obviously couldn't answer and perhaps not care much for it. I don't see it as a strategy fail at all.
Best to point out that failure made by the State during closing arguments in my opinion. JMO.