who really knows? If it's a 'good' jury, in the sense of understanding what is presented, then yes should be damaging because the prosecution succeeded in the only objective for calling Daniels, which was to show that Trump had adequate reason to pay her to shut up. that her story in public would reasonably be considered a threat to his election chances. I don't think any of the particulars of her testimony or even it's truth mattered much per se; as long as she presented as a person that could damage his election chances. I don't see that anything the defense did undercut building that premise. But the fact that that's how it looks on the outside is just a guess as to how it plays in the jury room. I am old enough to be a little surprised that this jury isn't being sequestered, but I suppose in the era of the smart-phone that's pretty pointless.