Live updates:Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case
Category: News & Politics
Via: jbb • 2 years ago • 159 commentsBy: Maureen Chowdhury, Tori B. Powell and Mike Hayes (CNN)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Maureen Chowdhury, Tori B. Powell and Mike Hayes, CNN
Updated 3:18 p.m. ET, May 9, 20237 PostsSort byLatestOldestDropdown arrow1 min ago
Jury finds Trump liable for defamation of Carroll and awards nearly $3 million
From CNN's Lauren del Valle
A jury in Manhattan federal court found Donald Trump liable for defamation in a civil lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll.
Trump should pay nearly $3 million in damages to Carroll for successfully proving her defamation claim against him, the jury found.
It also found that Trump should pay about $2 million in damages for her civil battery claim, bringing the total to $5 million.
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link7 min ago
Jury says Donald Trump should pay about $2 million in damages for battery of E. Jean Carroll
From CNN's Lauren del Valle
A jury in Manhattan federal court found that Donald Trump should pay about $2 million in damages to E. Jean Carroll for her civil battery claim.
Trump may have to pay more in damages if the jury finds that he also defamed Carroll. Defamation is the second claim in Carroll's lawsuit against Trump.
The verdict continues to be read in court.
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link9 min ago
JUST IN: Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case
From CNN's Lauren del Valle
A Manhattan federal jury found that Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in a luxury department store dressing room in the spring of 1996.
The jury found him liable for battery in Carroll's civil trial against him, based on that sexual assault claim.
Carroll also sued Trump for defamation related to a 2022 statement he made denying Carroll's allegations.
The verdict, including any damages, continues to be read in court.
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link25 min ago
JUST IN: Verdict reached in Carroll v Trump civil battery and defamation trial
From CNN's Lauren del Valle
A federal jury in Manhattan has reached a verdict in the civil battery and defamation trial of Donald Trump brought by writer E. Jean Carroll.
The jury of six men and three women deliberated for just over two and a half hours.
The verdict is expected to be read at 3 p.m. ET.
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link25 min ago
Key things to know about E. Jean Carroll's allegations against Trump and what she has to prove to win the case
From CNN's Lauren del Valle
The a jury in a Manhattan federal courtroom has been considering E. Jean Carroll's allegations that former President Donald Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman lingerie department dressing room in the spring of 1996, and then defamed her in a social media post last October. Trump has denied the allegations.
Carroll filed the lawsuit last November under the "New York State Adult Survivors Act," a state bill which opened a look-back window for sexual assault allegations like Carroll's with long-expired statutes of limitation.
This is not a criminal trial. In a civil suit like Carroll's, the jury must determine whether Carroll's legal team proved that Trump committed battery against Carroll by a preponderance of the evidence.
To prove her defamation claim, the jury must find that Carroll's legal team proved by the preponderance of the evidence that Trump knew it was false when he published the statement about Carroll last year and knowingly exposed her to public ridicule. They must also determine that she proved by clear and convincing evidence that the statement was false, and that Trump made the statement with actual malice.
Both the preponderance of the evidence standard and the clear and convincing evidence standard are not as high a standard as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is used in criminal cases. Clear and convincing evidence is higher than preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not. Clear and convincing evidence leaves no substantial doubt in the juror's mind and establishes that the proposition is highly probable.
The jury must be unanimous to reach a verdict but can reach a different verdict on each of the two claims - battery and defamation.
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link16 min ago
Judge said latest Trump post did not require a jury instruction
From CNN's Lauren del Valle
Plaintiff attorney Roberta Kaplan brought former President Donald Trump's latest TruthSocial post to Judge Lewis Kaplan's attention and asked if the jury does not reach a verdict by the end of the day, that he instruct them that Trump had every opportunity to testify and present a defense.
Trump attorney Joe Tacopina said the post does not require a jury instruction and that he had posts made by Donald and Eric Trump earlier in the trial deleted.
The judge sided with Tacopina and said he would not instruct the jury.
"We're dealing here with what we're dealing with…and I have no further comment," Judge Kaplan said.
The parties left the courtroom for a lunch break until about 1:45 when they are expected to return to the courtroom.
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link20 min ago
What Carroll and other Trump accusers said in their testimony
From CNN's Lauren del Valle
Columnist E. Jean Carroll testified for more than two full trial days during her case, recounting her story, how life has been since going public with her accusations and undergoing several hours of cross examination.
Two friends that Carroll testified she told soon after the alleged rape testified about their recollection of Carroll's account in 1996. Journalist Lisa Birnbach testified to corroborate Carroll's story that she called her minutes after she left the department store after she was allegedly raped.
Former local New York anchor Carol Martin also testified that Carroll, who had a show at the same cable news network at the time, also confided in her within days after the alleged incident. Birnbach and Martin, who were not initially named in Carroll's book, publicly came forward in support of their friend soon after Carroll published her account in New York magazine.
Trump's legal team has accused the two of conspiring with Carroll to fabricate this story to bring down Trump. All three have spoken publicly and in private messages shown to the jury about their hatred for the former president.
Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, who allege Trump physically forced himself on them, also testified about their alleged altercations.
At closing Carroll's attorney argued that allegations from Carroll, Leeds and Stoynoff reveal a pattern of Trump's aggressive behavior.
In each woman's testimony, they described how Trump first engaged them in a semipublic place, then allegedly grabbed them suddenly, then later denied the allegations and said "she is too ugly for anyone to assault," attorney Roberta Kaplan said.
"Three different women, decades apart, but one single pattern of behavior. What happened to Ms. Carroll is not unique in that respect. Trump's physical attacks and verbal attacks are his standard operational procedure," Kaplan said.
Trump has denied Leeds' and Stoynoff's allegations against him. Trump attorney Joe Tacopina told the jurors Monday that their testimony was a distraction at trial because their claims are not before this jury and don't affect Carroll's allegations.
Tacopina in his closing argument Monday also accused Carroll of fabricating her rape allegations to sell her book.
share with Facebookshare with Twittershare with emailshare link
Tags
Who is online
57 visitors
Trump Guilty of Sexual Assault and Defamation!
Must pay millions in damages to E Jean Carroll...
Trump's no good terrible awful really bad day...
Good for her.
He's a lowlife scumbag.
What will the GOP do?
The jury believed the woman entirely, but because she did not see penile penetration they did not convict on the rape charge. She did see finger penetration.
Nothing. The Trump base worships him and could not care less about this.
Trump is already claiming that he was not allowed to defend himself.
She sued for battery and defamation and won.
He'll be calling the jury a bunch of communists any minute now.
Of course they did. Trump's lawyer offered no evidence, no witnesses, and the accused refused to testify on his own behalf. AND I think his lawyer received more upheld objections, than questions he asked.
The video deposition was probably a major factor. The jury could not have looked on his ridiculous deposition performance favorably, especially in conjunction with the Access Hollywood tape.
the defendant voluntarily dug his own grave. hilarious. hopefully he gets sanctioned too.
Which goes to the old claim of, "if you want evidence against Trump, just put him in front of a camera".
2 million for sexual assault. 3 more for defamation!
Good
And now the appeals will begin, i wonder if the billionaire who funded this will continue to fund all the appeals?
Trump is not a billionaire. He is a bullionaire...
Wasn't referring to Trump...............it was the person who funded this suit for Carroll
ignorance is bliss!
Kind of like how the RNC funded Trump in his court cases?
The RNC Has Been Bankrolling Trump's Legal Bills. If He Runs, They're Cutting Him Off.
Checks & Imbalances: RNC Pays Trump’s Lawyers, Ethics Panel Investigates Texas Lawmaker
If it is okay for Trump, why is it not okay for his victim?
Trump's "YUCKO Factor" just went way way up...
Reading the comments here makes me weep for our education system. Convicted? Guilty? Do people know the difference between civil and criminal? [deleted]
So, how would you decribe the jury's decision?
Trump was found liable, that is the verdict. and damages were set at 5 million, that's how civil cases work, there is no guilt or innocence, there is no conviction.
Well if you are going to call people "fucking stupid" for failing to use liable instead of guilty in a civil case then you should at least use the proper word in your post:
Latter, not later.
We all know the difference between criminal and civil. "Guilty" is used because it is commonly how the public perceives court verdicts. These lame asses have no defense for him other than people say "guilty". Pathetic.
You caught a typo and managed to keep your lecture under 12 paragraphs, good for you! Now fuck off! or try to make a relevant point. or bleat endlessly for three weeks about the big lie, either way have at it.
I wrote my comment only because you called people "fucking stupid" for a common mistake.
Maybe you now recognize how easy it is for people to make simple mistakes.
[deleted your deleted] comment was called out and now you are trying to back track. [deleted]
John did not refer to Trump as guilty.
Wow, condescending comment, i'm shocked! and never would have expected it from you. You can now point out I didn't capitalize the I in i'm.
I honestly dont think anyone made a mistake. "Guilty" as a description of a civil court verdict is a colloquialism.
[deleted]
It is technically incorrect so George is technically correct. He is wrong, however, to deem people "fucking stupid" for simply using colloquial language.
So........Convict? defending this also? another ignorant comment.
get lost
whoop de doo
Read my next sentence too.
Don't let semantics spoil our celebration!
[Deleted]
Read my next sentence too.
[deleted]
So Trumpers, did the jury find Trump not not guilty of sexual assault and not not guilty of defamation?
They’re too busy looking up Trump’s gofundme account.
Since this will help DeSantis, I don't care
Will this help DeSantis or will it more enshrine Trump as a martyr in the eyes of the MAGA crowd?
And here is a way for you to gauge this. If Trump is nominated, are you still going to vote for him for PotUS?
the only people not to affirm that they will support the GOP candidate, whomever it may be, is trump and his supporters.
I'll take Martyr for $2000, Alex
Will he now have to register as a sex offender? Will it make a difference? Surreal.
another red dot following him around to be concerned about...
No, because he wasn't criminally convicted as a sex offender. I could be wrong
He wasn't found "not guilty" or "guilty". When you understand the differences in outcome between a civil and criminal court you'll get it:
There is also a difference in the threshold of evidence between a criminal court and a civil court.
In this case, because it was a civil complaint, the burden of proof was far less than if it were a criminal court. Think back to the OJ Simpson trials. He was found not guilty by the CRIMINAL COURT and found liable by the CIVIL COURT. And all because of the differences in the "the preponderance of evidence,"
So to answer your question - No he was not found "not guilty" for "sexual assault" (if you read the article you'll see the complaint was civil battery) and defamation. He was found LIABLE. Distinct differences.
A not guilty defendant does not pay damages!
Trump has to pay five million dollars damages!
I think it's more accurate to say he was found liable not "guilty"
He was liable and he's as guilty as sin.
You say po tot oh. I'll say guilty as hell!
of course
You guys win
[deleted]
I agree, a complete scumbag and i'm not surprised he was found liable, I would not be surprised if there were more. but the fact is, he wasn't FOUND guilty. he was found liable. there is a difference in terminology for a reason.
Trout should note you and she agreed...
Though I doubt she is comforted much!
You are explaining this to a semi-retired attorney (Gsquared).
can't read his comment
Is "responsible" for a sexual assault less damning than guilty of sexual assault?
Five million $ damages says guilty as hell.
You may be fishy, butt not "Bad Fishy"...
It irrelevant really, those that hate him will still do so and those that support him will blame a liberal jury and the sun will come up tomorrow.
thank you
And? I don't have to be an attorney to know the difference between guilty and liable, like any 6th grader should.
“…and those that support him will blame…”
Take your pick; a liberal jury, a liberal judge, a liberal jurisdiction, a liberal press.
The fact, however, is irrefutable, regardless of how inexplicably ignorant ‘those that support him’ continue to be.
A verdict in a US court that establishes Trump responsible for the sexual assault of a stranger is "irrelevant". Wow. He is an ex-president of the United States for pete's sake.
Guess his star power wasn’t strong enough this time to let him get away with grabbing pussies.
Another ignorant comment on your part John, The fact that he was found liable isn't irrelevant, it is irrelevant to the TDS suffers, and to the sycophants, Now fuck off or make a decent intelligent comment.
That’s less a testament to his abilities as than a testament to our current political dysfunction.
“Guess his star power wasn’t strong enough this time to let him get away with grabbing pussies.”
It never should have the first time…and now, this may not be the last time.
You somehow missed the point. My point is that you were trying to explain the distinction to an individual who spent a career as an attorney.
See?
You are making a big deal out of minor word choice. Your mention of 6th grade is spot on.
Another condescending comment how surprising. Now FUCK OFF
LOL. left hook, upper cut...
I'm sure to you it may always seem that way, but it's not intentional...
You first.
The woman's lawyer is probably getting death threats as we speak.
I’m surprised that a previous Repub Gov from Arkansas has made an impression on you, JR.
She dissed Trump. What would you expect?
Asa Hutchnison is a man. He's the former governor of Arkansas. And I thought he did a great job.
Thank you.....................sounded like a she
Hutchinson will probably be censured by the Arkansas Republican Party for that, maybe kicked out.
Unfortunately, that is actually a possibility nowadays. The GOP has lost its way.
That's the Clinton playbook. You guys should recognize given how often you ran it. Trump just copied it.
Let's not forget, Trump is currently under indictment in New York for 34 felony counts and remains under investgation regarding other, very serious potential criminal allegations. He is reaping the whirlwind for his misconduct.
comes up short in the elections, comes up short with the erections ...
Lol, they said it was his finger, nah just the mushroom Stormy talked about.
He doesn’t even care. That’s why he went golfing instead of defending himself. This is the sleaze bag people want for president.
He doesn't care because it doesn't matter. Because of who he is any woman that he has ever interacted with in any way has a motivation to do this to him knowing every Trump hater in the world will back her even at the cost of diluting the accusations for real traumatized victims of real assault.
Casting aspersions on someone who has now been vindicated by a jury of her peers in a court of law is pretty low. Gaslighting us with the faux concern of other victims won't help your case either.
Not buying it. I’m old enough to have some idea of who Trump is. His life has been very public for decades. Trump has a known history with lots of women. We have heard him - in his own words - talk about women as if they existed for his personal amusement.
He’s not being accused because he’s rich or because he was president and these people are trying to take advantage. Plenty of successful businessmen and political leaders manage to get through life without multiple accusations of sexual assault.
Oh BullSHIT! You don’t care two shits about victims of real assault. [removed] [!] None of the many accusations against Trump will do anything to change the dynamic of sexual assault for regular people. So rest your head easy tonight and worry not for all the victims.
The real losers here are all the women who suffered from real assault who will be lumped in with gold diggers like this who are clearly weaponizing this for political gain. People rarely look past their own prejudices to realize the real damage done by "winning any way possible"
“The real losers here are all the women who suffered from real assault…”
No, the real winners are all the victims who suffered from real assault. Women, men, girls, and boys who see in this result that regardless of time passed, regardless of the prominence of the abuser, and regardless of their previous anonymity, the courage to come forward is a good, healthy thing. For them personally and for society as a whole.
The whole "prominence of the abuser" thing went away with the #metoo movement. At this point, I think most prominent males are terrified with any interaction they have had with a female in the past because women know they will have the media on their side if they go after someone with something to lose. It's going to be a real shocker when a real abuse victim goes after that domestic abuser with nothing to lose and find out there will be no media storm behind her to believe every claim she makes.
What the fuck makes you think a real abuse victim will be looking for media attention?? You have very low opinion of women and as somebody said earlier, you don't give a fuck about abuse victims. You're just here to spouse shit because you're boy got tagged with a $5M law suit and he was ordered to pay up
Good point, but that's sort of a two-edged argument.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly believe it's something Trump could have done. The jury seemed satisfied that some sort of non-rapey wrongness went on, so OK. They've seen the evidence. I haven't. So we'll go with them.
But she's bringing this up 30 years afterward, accusing a former POTUS. She was absolutely looking for media attention, which, as you say, is very unusual for real abuse victims.
We've also got a bit of Brett Kavanaugh history showing us that liberal women will not hesitate to make shit up if they think it will help them stick one to The Donald.
So for me personally, it's all a bit "meh.... maybe". But there is also a little bit of "you probably got away with tons of other bullshit, so consider the $5m as payment for all the times you needed a smack in the mouth and nobody gave you one".
Huh ?
The jury did not find that Trump raped her.
The former president will forever and always play "the victim". He won't be the victim, but he has taught a lot of people that playing the victim card works at least some of the time.
Where did you copy and paste that bullshit from?
The easy use of “gold diggers” betrays a disrespect for assault victims and women in general. I don’t believe you are concerned about them at all.
Do you know anything at all about this case? There’s no “political gain” for this victim. Also, we know that she told people about this many years ago, right after it happened. She didn’t just invent this shit when Trump became president.
Where did you pull THAT bullshit from? She certainly waited until 2019 to file a suit.............Who was President at the time...........
It’s not odd. It’s common.
Holy cow. You guys need to learn the story before commenting. Seriously.
She wrote a book. Then Trump called her a liar. That’s defamation. That’s why she sued. To win the defamation case, she had to prove she wasn’t a liar, and that Trump actually assaulted her. Read a newspaper or something.
Read all about it. What was the point of putting it in the book but not reporting it at the time to authorities NOT including her friends?
Do you think she is lying about Trump's advances?
Don't troll the contributors on my articles!
You need to get to know some victims of sexual assault. Maybe talk to psychologists who treat victims, as well. Empathy would be very useful for you.