Stormy day in court

Judge allowed the irrelevant testimony, then blamed the defense for not objecting enough when things got way out of hand?

If there was a good reason for Stormy Daniels to testify about her alleged sexual encounter with Donald Trump, neither the prosecution or the Judge explained what it was. That being said, the testimony was so bizarre that apparently even the jury appeared confused and uncomfortable.

The defense demanded a mistrial, which the judge denied (even though he has no excuse for allowing this testimony). Now the issue is putting the genie back inside the bottle. Every time a witness testifies, the jury has to conclude that the testimony is relevant to the case? What do they defer from this testimony? Well it would be entirely normal for a jurist to believe that whether or not Trump and Stormy did the deed must have something to do with whether or not there was a falsification of business records. Why else would she testify. Of course, there is no reason for her to testify and 100% of what she testified to was prejudicial and sensational. It has literally nothing to do with the case.

Not to mention the fact that they allowed her to testify about a man who supposedly threatened her in 2017, which of course makes the suggestion that somehow that man had to have been associated with Trump. None of that would have any bearing on anything in this case, other than to further alienate a jury that probably doesn't care for Trump in the first place.

At the end of the day, this is just another arrow in the quill when (or if) the defense has to appeal this ridiculous court fiasco.