Posted on 12/30/2024 8:07:32 AM PST by Eagle Forgotten
A federal appeals court on Monday upheld a $5-million verdict that E. Jean Carroll won against Donald Trump when a jury found the U.S. president-elect liable for sexually abusing and later defaming the former magazine columnist.
. . . .
The May 2023 verdict stemmed from an incident around 1996 in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan, where Carroll said Trump raped her, and an October 2022 Truth Social post where Trump denied Carroll’s claim as a hoax.
Though jurors in federal court in Manhattan did not find that Trump committed rape, they awarded the former Elle magazine advice columnist $2.02 million for sexual assault and $2.98 million for defamation.
(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...
Trump's big problem here was that, as he's subsequently said, he got bad legal advice. He didn't testify. The jury heard only her side.
His lawyers argued that some evidence, like the "Access Hollywood" tape of Trump, was improperly admitted. The trial judge ruled, and the appellate court agreed, that the tape and similar accusations by other women could be considered by the jury, as tending to show a pattern of conduct.
I just KNOW that someone will point out that she couldn't remember the exact date of the incident. Bear in mind that an appellate review of a jury verdict doesn't focus on one piece of evidence favorable to the defendant. The issue is whether the entire record gives some reasonable basis for the verdict. Here, Trump's refusal to testify to dispute her claims would give that basis.
Trump can ask for en banc review by the full court, and then ask SCOTUS to take the case, but I don't think his chances are very good. Maybe he should sue his lawyers.
Trump needs to sue her civilly. He’ll win
She’s a nut
Video
E. Jean Carroll’s bizarre “Mouse House” in the middle of the forest with painted rocks and trees around it
https://rumble.com/v4804eo-e.-jean-carrolls-bizarre-mouse-house-in-the-middle-of-the-forest.html
Didn’t hear the part about bad legal advice. Really hope he doesn’t have to reward someone like that in the end. He can afford the money, but it’s outrageous when liars win.
The decision to testify resides with the party and not the party’s attorney.
“ Bear in mind that an appellate review of a jury verdict doesn’t focus on one piece of evidence favorable to the defendant. The issue is whether the entire record gives some reasonable basis for the verdict.”
I wanted to emphasize this part of your excellent reply. Most people don’t understand how the appellate court works. It is NOT a do-over. The court does not weigh the evidence. If there is ANY evidence to support the conclusion of the jury, the judgment will not be reversed. I would not have advised a client to appeal this verdict, though Trump may have chosen to do so for the obvious tactical reasons
Mark Simone,an excellent NYC talk show host,has mentioned a number of times on his show that none of the many friends he has that were working at Bergdorf’s at the time saw DJT in the Ladies’ Department there.
No, he wouldn’t. See my No. 7. One of the elements of malicious prosecution is the failure of a claim in the first case that had no probable cause behind it. A jury verdict, let alone an affirmed jury verdict, scotches that
That is ultimately true, but it is the attorney’s job to persuade his client to make the right decision. A more important question is whether the “correctness” of such advice can ever be discerned because it is the product of so many variables: the quality of witness he would make, whether he is likely to do well or poorly on cross exam, what impression will he make on this particular panel of jurors, etc.
***Though jurors in federal court in Manhattan did not find that Trump committed rape***.
(A federal appeals court) on Monday upheld a $5-million verdict that E. Jean Carroll won against Donald Trump when a jury found the U.S. president-elect liable for sexually abusing.
Thumb on scale of justice in action?. Don’t tell me for who I’ll get it.
I withhold any opinion until I hear what a good legal commentator has to say about this?
Crazy, focused on herself of course, and no doubt easily riled up. A diagnostic type of cray cray. Whoo boy—as in “what’s not to like?” heh.
Trump didn’t do this and it’s a shame.
As for the appellate court, true that they usually are proceedings and he probably doesn’t have a strong appellate case.
But as a very wise attorney told me in dealing with an appellate court once: “They do what they want. “
I’ve been impatiently waiting to hear how this fiasco was progressing. Thanks.
The whole deal makes me sick.
I thought the trial regarded his denial of the assault.
You’re right that there are many variables affecting the decision whether a defendant should testify. In this instance, though, one factor really jumps out at me. This was literally a he-said-she-said situation where only two people had direct, personal knowledge of what happened. One of them came into court, testified UNDER OATH, and was subjected to cross-examination. The other one didn’t.
Okay, hindsight is 20/20. It’s easy to say that Trump should’ve testified, now that we know how the jury found. Still, even without the benefit of hindsight, his failure to tell his side seems like a dubious decision.
Yes but the powers that be won’t let law stop them for now things will change after he’s in office and about time.
“Your honor, it happened so long ago the state had to pass a special ex post facto law to nullify the statute of limitation expiration, I don’t remember what year it happened, I didn’t file a police report, I have no corroborating witnesses or evidence of any kind.”
“Guilty!”
There were two “Carroll v. Trump” trials. The first trial was about the assault (for which the jury awarded $2 million) and the subsequent defamation ($3 million). That’s the verdict that was just affirmed on appeal.
Trump made other statements calling Carroll a liar. The second trial was just about defamation. She’d already been awarded damages for the assault itself, but the second trial was about statements by Trump that hadn’t been included in the first trial. The second jury awarded $83 million for the additional defamation. The appeal from that verdict is still pending.
Disgruntled litigants don’t get to keep re-arguing points that have been decided. Therefore, the second jury was told that it had been established that Trump assaulted Carroll. The second verdict can’t be challenged on that basis. There’s a good chance, however, that the court will find the amount excessive, and reduce it (but not to zero).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.