A judge allowed prosecutors to put on testimony unrelated to the accusations against former President Donald Trump, igniting concerns about inflaming the jury.
This week’s testimony of an adult film actress against former President Donald Trump was headline-grabbing and gasp-inspiring. It also never should have been permitted, legal analysts say.
“It’s shameful that the judge allowed it,” Phill Kline, a Liberty University law professor and former Kansas attorney general, told The Epoch Times.
That’s because the sometimes-lewd statements of Stephanie Clifford, also known as “Stormy Daniels,” about an alleged 2006 one-night affair were unrelated to the business-records accusations President Trump faces.
Allowing such testimony violated a basic American legal precept: That prosecutors are barred from presenting irrelevant evidence, especially if it “could incite a jury, because of dislike or anger, to punish the person, regardless of whether they find them guilty or not,” Mr. Kline said.
Still, other legal analysts applauded Ms. Clifford for withstanding difficult questions; they see signs that the trial is going well for prosecutors and is wrapping up faster than expected.
But the controversy over Ms. Clifford’s testimony adds to concerns about the way prosecutors and the judge have handled a case that appears to be built on a shaky