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 ...
All she has to do is to present more evidence than Trump. So far she’s done that.
The “judge” has interfered in this case from the start, essentially becoming part of the prosecution team. He objects to things that the lawyers representing Carroll didn’t object to.
Has every tort where the defense produced no evidence been successful?
E. Jean Carroll-Balsey-Ford
This isn’t a criminal trial.
what evidence? of what?
nothing is mentioned in the article.
still need some form of evidence of wrong doing.
otherwise, the courts are just a popularity contest
She’s testified as to what she claims Trump did. Several friends have attested as to what she told them after. They’ve had an expert witness testify that her actions in the wake of the alleged attack were in keeping with how women often respond to such an assault. Another woman has testified that he groped her aboard an airplane and that he later recognized her as a “c**t” he encountered aboard an airplane. Testimony is evidence, however credible it may or may not be. You can call it “he said, she said”, except that he’s not saying anything here.
It's a New York court. He was done when the case was filed.
I agree with you.
Trump’s track record on picking good attorneys sucks!
“I would also like to know what the dressing rooms were like.”
What is amazing to me is that Bergdorff-Goodman seems to be comfortable letting people think they have a history of lax security.
I’ve never been in more than the lobby of the store. They made it clear that my type wasn’t wanted.
I can’t believe for a minute that the women’s dressing rooms aren’t well attended with matrons tidying up all the time, or salespeople running back and forth to get women a size 6 to try because the size 4 or 8 doesn’t fit. Something like this doesn’t happen in a high-end store like that? I don’t believe it.
Then again, I wonder if Trump isn’t waiting for Bergdorff-Goodman to sue Jean Carroll for reputational damage.
Raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store.
Yeah I bet Trump spends a lot of time in department stores and car washes huh Moe.
“
It’s a civil trial, the winner is the side which presents the moist evidence for their case. “
“Moist” evidence? Is there a blue dress?
“her actions in the wake of the alleged attack were in keeping with how women often respond to such an assault. “
BY WHOM? Even IF (BIG IF) she had been raped, WHO raped her?
She says Trump. Okay PROVE IT! Oh, you CAN’T....
You’ve said a couple times here that both sides present evidence and whoever has more evidence wins - but the law is not nearly that symmetrical when it comes to presentation of evidence.
The burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution to present sufficient evidence of guilt. Therefore, it is quite common for a defense team to present no direct evidence at all - but rather to focus on debunking the evidence presented by the prosecution.
While it’s true that a defense team may sometimes present evidence in order to refute the prosecution’s evidence, that is not necessarily so. In many cases, the prosecution presents evidence and the defense seeks to discredit it.
For example, if the accuser has an eye witness claiming they were there on a certain day and saw the whole thing, the defense may present counter evidence proving that the defendant was elsewhere on that day.
My understanding of this case is that the accuser’s evidence is so vague and circumstantial that counter evidence is not possible - or necessary. If the accuser can’t even remember what day or week the incident occurred, how can Trump possibly prove he was elsewhere at the time? And why should he have to?
The article says Trump’s team is not putting up a defense, but only mentions that Trump’s expert will not appear due to health issues and that Trump won’t appear. Why would they not introduce the expert’s video deposition testimony if he can’t appear in court? I don’t know what NY law is, but surely they can enter the expert’s video deposition. Otherwise, you can’t just get another expert in the middle of court or after discovery has ended. And Trump appearing at trial would give this sham credence. If the jury does find in favor of the plaintiff, it definitely sounds like a winnable case for Trump on appeal. Isn’t the case a defamation case? Even if she got the jury to believe he raped her, she has to prove she was fired because Trump simply denied it.... in NY. I know, it’s a NY jury, but it’s definitely winnable on appeal.
“While there may not be any direct evidence or witnesses...”
From my previous post. With that lead in, everything I said should be BS! There should be nothing to talk about - and especially no trial!
What politician was it that they were investigating and said “It isn’t whether it is true or not, it is the severity of the allegations that matters.” (Or something like that.) Heck - it might have been Trump but I thought it was from 20 years ago now.
“I wonder what the health issues were for Trump’s witness — perhaps that the person got some veiled threat?”
That, and their family, and a big bribe.
Trump’s lawyers really dropped the ball on this. They should have flown him in days in advance, and babysat him.
Trump’s been boned by his lawyer’s lots these days. The best ones won’t rep him, due to threats of carrer death, or worse. I read about it months ago. Concerted effort to deny him the best representation. The Usual Suspects are behind it.
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.