Posted on 05/03/2023 11:00:54 PM PDT by Coronal
Former President Donald Trump will not put up a defense in his civil trial on allegations that he raped former columnist E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s, his attorneys told a judge presiding over the case Wednesday.
Trump's legal team had planned an expert witness to attempt to rebut Carroll's allegations in the case, but that witness was unable to testify due to "health issues," attorney Joe Tacopina told U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan.
The expert was one of two people on the defense's witness list before the trial in a Manhattan court. The other person was Trump, though Tacopina confirmed on Tuesday that the former president would not be appearing to testify.
"It is his call," Kaplan replied Tuesday.
Carroll's legal team called in a clinical psychologist Wednesday who testified that Carroll exhibited signs of trauma that are common among rape victims.
“For many years, she just simply blamed herself for the assault, thought she just did something stupid and that’s why it happened,” Leslie Lebowitz, a psychologist hired by Carroll’s attorneys, said. She clarified that she had no independent knowledge about whether Carroll was or wasn't raped when pressed by an attorney for Trump.
Trump has vehemently denied Carroll's accusations that he raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store, calling her claims a "hoax" and that she's not his "type." Carroll is suing him for defamation and battery. Trump contends there was no defamation because he says he's telling the truth.
Carroll maintains that she never reported the alleged rape to police because she felt ashamed and was afraid of taking on a wealthy businessman. She said she was inspired to speak out in part due to the 2019 #MeToo movement and motivated to sue by prominent Trump critic and attorney George Conway.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
This recent trend of women crawling out of the woodwork to accuse prominent political figures, who they just happen to hate for their politics, of sexual assault years after the incident is alleged to have happened is absurd, and the courts should dismiss these cases before trial.
It’s a civil trial, the winner is the side which presents the moist evidence for their case. Carroll doesn’t need to “prove” anything, she only needs to provide more evidence than Trump. Given that he’s presenting nothing, that his defense strategy is to try to break Carroll into confessing that it was a lie and that she made it all up, his prospects at this point look rather dim to me.
I wonder what the health issues were for Trump’s witness — perhaps that the person got some veiled threat?
If I were a juror on this case, it would bother me that Carroll doesn’t know on what day (or week or month) this alleged rape occurred. If there is a specific date, the accused at least has a shot at proving his/her whereabouts that day.
I would also like to know what the dressing rooms were like. Do men frequently walk in to women’s dressing rooms Bergdorf? I’ve been in a lot of dressing rooms and besides there usually being other patrons around, sales staff often hovers asking if they can get something in another size or color. I find it difficult to believe that a rape occurred because I think someone would have heard if Carroll had called out when/if Trump first entered the dressing room.
I would imagine that Tacopina is asking about all of this.
If the accused were a Rat, the plaintiff would no longer exist.
On the other hand, Trump embraces Due Process, and the judiciary, friend or foe, recognizes that.
Discovery on her mental health and medication history should be interesting.
Calling on anyone who dated her to come forward and tell their story.
George Conway.
/SPIT
Discovery has long since closed. Since the burden of proof is only a preponderance of evidence, it is foolish not to present a defense and even more foolish for the defendant not to be present.
will not put up a defense in his civil trial on allegations
That seems pretty arrogant and doomed to fail, especially in a NY courtroom.
Crushing victories are one of the best ways to stop this madness.
Time, weather, other people/witnesses around, locations, speeds, etc.
Some of the witnesses were very methodical and clear in what they saw (a horrific car crash in the trial I was watching). Others seemed very confused about what they saw, and their versions didn't make sense.
I like your idea. While there may not be any direct evidence or witnesses, the scene of the “crime” would lend itself to is it believable or not.
I recall a store years ago where the dressing rooms were down a long hallway and well away from the main area, and the rooms had full, locking doors. At the Goodwill store they have the partial doors and the rooms are on the wall adjacent to the women's racks of clothing with customers three feet away.
At this point if trump were convicted of 3 life terms from all these fake phony allegations we would still win in a landslide victory
Too bad he could not find a replacement expert witness psychologist to cancel the plaintiff’s expert witnesses. These paid expert witnesses have a way of cancelling each other out in a trial. In that sense, Trump’s attorney is ceding ground to the plaintiff, especially in a trial jurisdiction where he cannot get a fair jury pool.
This is such BS!
It’s in NYC. It’s a waste of time for him to even show up.
“Carroll doesn’t know on what day (or week or month) this alleged rape occurred.”
I think I read that she doesn’t even know the YEAR, either.
She’s been hired, just as Anita Hill was.
And Tacopina isn’t really helping Trump by having no witnesses. Even have testimony about the layout/size of the dressing rooms, if it’s conceivable tha there was not even one person in the department then, etc. He needs to provide a “vigorous” defense.
I don’t understand why Trump believes a federal jury finding he committed rape helps him become president.
Can they even prove he was in the building?
Can they prove Trump met her?
Can they prove they were alone for a time?
No. Of course, that doesn’t mean a democrat jury full of Trump haters won’t find him guilty even before any trial begins.
In the 15th century jurisprudence we have now, an accusation is proof.
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.