Trump the Defamatory Rapist

[Joe Guy]

I'm sure you've all heard this already but I enjoy posting it too much to care...

Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M
LARRY NEUMEISTER
5–6 minutes

NEW YORK (AP) — A jury found Donald Trump liable Tuesday for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996, awarding her $5 million in a judgment that could haunt the former president as he campaigns to regain the White House.

The verdict was announced in a federal courtroom in New York City on the first day of jury deliberations. Jurors rejected Carroll’s claims that she was raped, but found Trump liable for sexual abuse and for defaming Carroll after she made her allegations public.

Trump chose not to attend the civil trial and was absent when the verdict was read.

Carroll nodded as the verdict was read. Afterward, her lawyers put their arms around her, and she hugged supporters in the gallery, smiling through tears.

Trump’s lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, shook hands with Carroll and hugged her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan. As the courtroom cleared, Carroll could be heard laughing and crying.

Trump immediately lashed out with a statement on his social media site, claiming again that he does not know Carroll and referring to the verdict as “a disgrace” and “a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time.”

The trial’s outcome was a validation for Carroll, one of more than a dozen women who accused Trump of sexual assault or harassment. She went public in 2019 with her allegation that the Republican raped her in the dressing room of a posh Manhattan department store.

Trump, 76, denied it, saying he never encountered Carroll at the store and didn’t know her. He has called her a “nut job” who invented “a fraudulent and false story” to sell a memoir.

Carroll, 79, had sought unspecified damages, plus a retraction of what she said were Trump’s defamatory denials of her claims.

The trial revisited the lightning-rod topic of Trump’s conduct toward women.

Carroll gave multiple days of frank, occasionally emotional testimony, buttressed by two friends who told jurors she reported the alleged attack to them in the moments and day afterward.

Jurors also heard from Jessica Leeds, a former stockbroker who testified that Trump abruptly groped her against her will on an airplane in the 1970s, and from Natasha Stoynoff, a writer who said Trump forcibly kissed her against her will while she was interviewing him for a 2005 article.

The six-man, three-woman jury also saw the well-known 2005 “Access Hollywood” hot mic recording of Trump talking about kissing and grabbing women without asking.

The Associated Press typically does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll, Leeds and Stoynoff have done.

Tacopina told the jury in closing arguments Monday that Carroll's account is too far fetched to be believed. He said she made it up to fuel sales of a 2019 memoir in which she first publicly revealed her claims and to disparage Trump for political reasons.

Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, cited excerpts from Trump's October deposition and his notorious comments on a 2005 “Access Hollywood” video in which he said celebrities can grab women between the legs without asking.

She urged jurors to believe her client.

“He didn’t even bother to show up here in person,” Kaplan said. She said much of what he said in his deposition and in public statements “actually supports our side of the case.”

“In a very real sense, Donald Trump is a witness against himself,” she said. “He knows what he did. He knows that he sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll.”

Carroll testified that she had a chance encounter with Trump at the Bergdorf Goodman store across the street from Trump Tower. She said it was a lighthearted interaction in which they teased each other about trying on a piece of lingerie before Trump became violent inside a dressing room.

Tacopina told jurors there was no reason to call Trump as a witness when Carroll can't even recall when her encounter with Trump happened.

He told the jury Carroll made up her claims after hearing about a 2012 “Law and Order” episode in which a woman is raped in the dressing room of the lingerie section of a Bergdorf Goodman store.

“They modeled their secret scheme on an episode of one of the most popular shows on television,” he said of Carroll.

Two of Carroll's friends testified that she told them about the encounter with Trump shortly after it happened, many years before the “Law and Order” episode aired.

[Joe Guy]

Before anyone points it out, I know Trump wasn't found guilty of rape and that it was "sexual abuse" but he's a rapist as far as I'm concerned.

[Sue U]

Before anyone points it out, I know Trump wasn't found guilty of rape and that it was "sexual abuse" but he's a rapist as far as I'm concerned.

Eh, sexual abuse/battery being the civil-law counterpart to criminal-law rape, I'm perfectly fine with the characterization.

Oh, I stand corrected; there actually is a civil rape claim in NY and it was on the verdict sheet, but the jury evidently answered "no" on rape and "yes" on sexual abuse. Not sure what the distinction is but I can't take the time now to look up the model jury charge.

[BoSoxGal]

I hadn’t actually heard it yet, have been off screens for a few hours and no news on either.

Thanks for the thread and the great news! It’s nice to see some justice now and then.

[Joe Guy]

My pleasure. I'm always happy to bring good news to the membership.

I turned on CNN and saw Takapina being interviewed and he said something to the effect that he was happy the jury didn't find Trump guilty of rape.

Maybe he should talk to Sue (Urass)?

[BoSoxGal]

I just visited USMessageBoard for the first time in months and months just so I could see the heads exploding.

[Bicycle Bill]

So now Trump is convicted of sexual assault.   I wonder if he is going to have to register as a sex offender as a result of this.

I also wouldn't want to be naked, dripping wet, standing on one leg and holding my breath in a Wisconsin blizzard for as long as Lizzie Jean there is going to have to wait to see any of that five million dollars the jury awarded her.

-"BB"-

[Bicycle Bill]

I just visited USMessageBoard for the first time in months and months just so I could see the heads exploding.

I imagine this .gif is going to show up a lot in the next couple of days.



-"BB"-

[Methuselah]

If a jury finds a defendant is charged with a fine to pay the person who has been defamed does the court have any responsibility to see that the fine is paid?

[Sue U]

If a jury finds a defendant is charged with a fine to pay liable for damages to the person who has been defamed does the court have any responsibility to see that the fine verdict/award is paid?

First, FTFY. What we're talking about in a civil case is not a "fine" (mostly, I'll get to that), but fair compensation for the injury caused (in this case) to E. Jean Carroll, both physically and to her reputation. The elements of the verdict here that might be analogous to a "fine" is the separate award of punitive damages, ostensibly meant to deter similar conduct in the future. The jury in this case did award $20,000 in punitive damages for the assault and $280,000 in punitive damages for defamation, on top of $2 million in compensatory damages for the assault and $2.7 million for defamation.

Now as to enforcement: Technically, there are still a number of steps to go before anything is likely to be paid or the mechanism for payment is determined. The jury has rendered a verdict, but the court still has to enter a judgment on that verdict before it is final, and that won't be done until any post-trial motions are decided. Typically, the defendant will move for a new trial, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("j.n.o.v." in the legal Latin vernacular) and/or a reduction in the award because the amount is so grossly disproportionate as to "shock the conscience" (known as "remittitur"). Assuming Trump loses on these motions, the court will then enter a judgment on the docket in accordance with the jury verdict, ordering him to pay up. The order for judgment usually includes an additional award of pre- and post-judgment interest on the verdict amounts, to the extent available, and any costs that may be charged under the court rules.

At this point, Trump will have 30 days in which to pay or file an appeal. If he appeals, he can avoid payment by posting a bond for the judgment amount, and will not have to actually pay Carroll until the appeal has run. During the post-trial motions and appeal process the parties may still negotiate a settlement if they so choose. If Trump does not appeal and does not otherwise pay up, Carroll can execute on the judgment by obtaining a court order to freeze Trump's bank accounts and/or seize property sufficient to satisfy the judgment, enforceable in this case by the U.S. Marshall since it's a federal court judgment; executions on state court judgments are enforceable by the county sheriff. After a bank freeze/property seizure, the defendant will be served with an order to show cause ("OSC") why the the assets should not be liquidated to satisfy the judgment.

If Trump appeals, it's likely to be another two years before the appeal is decided by the Second Circuit; after that, he could petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review ("petition for certiorari"), but given the nature of the case and the type of issues that might be raised on appeal, it is highly unlikely the court would accept the case.

[Methuselah]

Thanks, Sue. I hope Jean has the endurance to go through the process.

[Big RR]

Methuselah, FWIW, there is not much endurance required; she just has to sit and wait (except in the unlikely event that a new trial is ordered) until the motions and appeals run their course. Nothing really for her to do during the process, unless Trump offers to settle (and I seriously doubt he will).

[Scooter]