Legal representatives of former U.S. president, Donald Trump, and ex-columnist E. Jean Carroll assembled in a lower downtown courtroom last week. The trial was set as Trump aimed to sway a federal court of appeal for a retrial, after being accused of defamation and sexual harassment by Carroll, which led to a settlement of $5 million awarded to her in the previous trial. This all-day hearing did not yield an immediate decision and one is not anticipated before the upcoming presidential campaign in November.
As the Republican nominee for the presidency, Trump was back in legal proceedings, marking it as his common routine during his campaign tours. Unlike his earlier trials in New York on civil fraud and illicit hush-money payments where he proclaimed his unjust prosecution publicly, the federal courts allowed no such media interaction. Nevertheless, the media leaving no stone unturned, followed his convoy.
The court hearing on this day zoomed in on the pieces of evidence produced during the trial. Trump’s legal team argued some of these should have never been part of the evaluation process by the jury. This is seen by John Sauer, Trump’s Lawyer, as a paramount ‘he-said-she-said case’ stirred by a plaintiff backed by Trump’s political adversaries.
The occurrence inside the appellate hearing room was rife with technicalities, with discussion around the admissibility of testimony from Jessica Leeds. Leeds, in her own voice during the trail, recalled an incident from the 1970s where she was allegedly assaulted by Trump on an airplane.
The conversation around the notorious ‘Access Hollywood’ tape, which was a part of the trial, was invoked during the hearing. Kaplan, taking the lead, thought it would be more suited if submitted as an admission, referring to the trial judge’s previous rulings, the tape ‘could’ve been seen by the jury as a sort of individual admission relating to his conduct.’
The issue of Trump’s non-attendance during the trial was also brought up by Kaplan. She pointed out that Trump could have taken the stand in his defense during the trial but chose not to. Notable pieces of evidence such as ‘Access Hollywood’ tape and segments from Trump’s deposition were seen as fit for the trial, given Trump’s refusal to testify in person.
The first trail challenging Carroll, where Trump didn’t appear, is being currently challenged in the appeal court. Moreover, Trump also attended most of the later trial proceedings against Carroll that took place earlier this year, which didn’t sway in his favor either.
His first legal charges for sexual abuse and defamation began with the Carroll trial in 2023, though he has faced several since then. Carroll’s chilling testimony revolved around her claim of being raped by Trump in a New York department store in the mid-90s, which Trump denied in 2019, leading to defamation suits.
Trump’s denial, coupled with his remarks that Carroll was not his ‘type’ and that she fabricated the story to peruse better book sales, further solidified her defamation charges. There was a firm agreement among the jury that Trump did commit sexual abuse, however, they could not unanimously declare the incident a rape. Carroll’s legal team was awarded a sum of $5 million but the case did not result in any incarceration for Trump.
Separately, a defamation trial was held earlier this year, which resulted in another win for Carroll rewarding damages worth $83.3 million. Here, Trump was challenged for repeating similar negative statements about Carroll. Trump’s appeal against the judgement of this 2023 trial further noted that the judge erred by letting the jury hear from two other women who also accused Trump of sexual assault.
In their arguments, Trump’s defense asserted that the court permitting the ‘Access Hollywood’ video to be played in front of the jury was biased. Furthermore, they alleged that the court’s decision to not allow question rounds surrounding the monetary aid of Democrat Reid Hoffman to Carroll’s litigation and obstructing the defense’s plan to query about George Conway’s conversation with Carroll before the lawsuit, were unreasonable restrictions.
They reiterated their objection against the court’s stewards to not let them question Carroll about Trump’s DNA, her statements around it, and the dress she claimed to have been wearing during their meeting in the store. Carroll’s legal team justified the court’s decisions on the grounds of relevancy and correctness.
Carroll’s representation defended the allowance of testimonies from the two accusers required in proving that Carroll was indeed assaulted by Trump. They said this shows Trump’s common pattern of assaulting women and later dismissing the allegations based on the women’s attractiveness.
According to Carroll’s legal team, the court’s prudential decision on evidence handling didn’t show any direct errors. Furthermore, they argued that even if any could be found, the overwhelming truth against Trump would still entail no need for a retrial.