A lawsuit has been presented against ex-President Donald Trump by five Black and Latinx men formerly referred to as the ‘Central Park Five’. They claim that Trump’s untruths regarding their case have resulted in significant emotional distress and damage to their reputation. These allegations arise from Trump’s consistent, erroneous insistence that the men were guilty of a sexual assault from which they were vindicated, over 20 years prior.
This case dates back to 1989 when these five men, then teenagers, were apprehended by the New York City Police Department. The arrest was due to suspicions that they had assaulted, both sexually and physically, a female jogger in Central Park. Mistakenly believed to be complicit, these teenagers trusted that their confessions, coerced during avoidably long interrogations, would stop these proceedings.
Aligned against them were the detectives, feeding them a string of false claims during the arduous interrogation period. Asserting that the fingerprints at the crime scene matched theirs, the detectives also suggested that the other suspects had all confessed and implicated them in the assault. To top off these fabricated narratives, the reassurance was given that admitting to participation would secure their release to go home.
These men, now recognized as the Exonerated Five, revealed these facts in a joint piece published in 2021. Denying all assertions made during the interrogation, they clarified that these were coerced misstatements. Despite their confessions, none of the five pleaded guilty when standing trial.
Throughout the years, even as they languished behind bars serving sentences for a crime they did not commit, these men never ceased asserting their innocence. Fatefully, absolution came in 2002 when another individual confessed to the assault and DNA proof authenticated their innocence. Subsequently, freedom from their prison detention was awarded.
Following their liberation, the city settled on a payment of $41 million to cater to their legal fees. This figure, however, does not account for the years they had been wrongfully confined, the emotional distress they underwent, and the reputational damage they endured due to their unwarranted involvement in this case.
Despite the turn of events, former President Donald Trump has made the unyielding decision to attach himself to this case. Initiating this sordid affair, Trump published a full-page advertisement in The New York Times when the charges were first laid. He campaigned for the reinstatement of the death penalty, using the case as a focal point.
Even after the exoneration of these men, Trump maintained his stance, justifying himself with their forced confessions as proof of their guilt. His insistence that they deserved a capital punishment for a crime they did not commit showed a stark lack of remorse or regret over his initial view.
In 2019, confronted over his position and whether he had any regret over publicizing the advertisement, Trump responded, ‘They admitted their guilt.’ His statement showed that he still believed the coerced confessions were an endorsement of their supposed culpability.
More recently, during a presidential debate against his Democratic adversary Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump reiterated his fallacious claims. His flawed understanding of the situation was evident when he said: ‘They admitted — they said, they pled guilty. And I said, well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately. And if they pled guilty — then they pled we’re not guilty.’
Reacting to his persistent falsehoods, the five men filed a lawsuit against Trump. Their complaint cited the ‘demonstrably false’ words of Trump. They clarified that they never pleaded guilty and were eventually cleared of all accusations. They also noted that the victims of the Central Park assaults were fortunately not fatally injured.
The complaint elucidated the impact of Trump’s false accusations on them. It stated that his relentless propagation of fake claims against them has inflicted severe emotional distress and reputational damage. As a result, they are seeking financial compensation for the defamatory effects of Trump’s false declarations.
The lawsuit presents an uncertain future for Trump. Even if he triumphs in the presidential race, this case could still proceed. According to a 1997 Supreme Court ruling, presidents can indeed face civil lawsuits during their tenure — a fact that underscores this case’s potential.
Despite the established precedent that exonerates a president from criminal charges during their tenure, this civil dispute stands as a prominent exception. Consequently, irrespective of his potential presidential victory, Trump would have to respond to the lawsuit filed by these men, thereby outlining the complex dynamics between presidential immunity and individual rights.