E. Jean Carroll's lawsuits against Trump for Sexual Assault and Defamation

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It is possible (I would even say likely) that the punitive damages award will be reduced, either by Judge Kaplan himself or on appeal.

[Sunsilver]

It will be interesting to see if Trump actually pays whatever figure is finally decided on. He's well known for either bullying people threatening to sue him into not laying charges, and the few times he's been actually taken to court, and lost, he hasn't paid the damages.

But this is a criminal case, not a civil case.

No doubt he'll drag things out by appealing, though.

[N.E. Brigand]

It will be interesting to see if Trump actually pays whatever figure is finally decided on. He's well known for either bullying people threatening to sue him into not laying charges, and the few times he's been actually taken to court, and lost, he hasn't paid the damages. But this is a criminal case, not a civil case. No doubt he'll drag things out by appealing, though.

As some point after the previous trial Trump lost to Carroll, he was required to put the $5 million he owes her in an escrow account.

[N.E. Brigand]

It is possible (I would even say likely) that the punitive damages award will be reduced, either by Judge Kaplan himself or on appeal.

Is there any statutory cap? After a quick internet search, I'm seeing that there is no cap on punitive damages in New York but also that some states limit punitive damages to four times compensatory damages. But this is a case in federal court. (When did that happen? Wikipedia's article "E.Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump" is not so helpful about how this trial got moved from state court to federal court. I know that it happened due to a ruling per the Westfall Act, but not when that decision was made.) Anyway, the compensatory damages were $18.3 million. Four times that amount is $73.2 million. If Judge Kaplan or an appeals panel were to see "four times the compensatory damages" as a reasonable standard to adopt, then the punitive damages of $65 million are under that limit.

[N.E. Brigand]

Speaking on Newsmaxx tonight, Rudy Giuliani said Judge Kaplan is a disgrace because Donald Trump was found liable for "sexual assault, not rape."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

E.Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump" is not so helpful about how this trial got moved from state court to federal court. I know that it happened due to a ruling per the Westfall Act, but not when that decision was made.)

The case was initially removed under the Westfall Act when the DoJ tried to substitute the U.S. as the defendant instead of Trump. Though Kaplan denied the substitution motion (and was upheld by the Second Circuit of the Court of Appeal), the case remained in federal court.

Anyway, the compensatory damages were $18.3 million. Four times that amount is $73.2 million. If Judge Kaplan or an appeals panel were to see "four times the compensatory damages" as a reasonable standard to adopt, then the punitive damages of $65 million are under that limit.

There is a U.S. Supreme Court case that suggests that when compensatory damages are high (which is the case here with $18.3 million), due process may require a lower ratio between the compensatory damages and the punitive damages, even as low as 1 to 1. I'll see if I can find that citation.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The case I was referring to is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408. In addressing the 4:1 ratio discussed in Gore v. BMW, the court stated;

When compensatory damages are substantial, then a lesser ratio, perhaps only equal to compensatory damages, can reach the outermost limit of the due process guarantee. The precise award in any case, of course, must be based upon the facts and circumstances of the defendant's conduct and the harm to the plaintiff.

As I said earlier, I think it is likely that they will be reduced, though probably not to 1:1. And, of course, it is possible that the compensatory damages will not be upheld, though I think that is unlikely.

[N.E. Brigand]

Over the past couple weeks, I saw a lot of claims on social media that New York passed the Adult Survivors Law -- which made it possible for past victims of sexual assault for which the criminal statute of limitations had passed to file civil claims (during a one-year window of Nov. 24, 2022-Nov. 24, 2023) -- specifically to help E. Jean Carroll sue Donald Trump. Now I'm seeing claims that Carroll herself was instrumental in the bill passing into law. I haven't been able to verify what if any role she might have played, but I would like to note that it passed the New York State Senate (which currently has 42 Democrats and 21 Republicans) unanimously and that it passed the New York State Assembly (which currently has 102 Democrats and 48 Republicans) by a vote of 140-3. In other words, almost every Republican supported it.

And Wikipedia says the law has been used not only to sue Donald Trump but also to sue Bill Cosby, Rudy Giuliani, Sean "Diddy" Combs, Axl Rose, Jamie Foxx, Cuba Gooding Jr., Andrew Cuomo, and Eric Adams. Some of them have settled (which is not an admission of guilt). The other cases are pending.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Now I'm seeing claims that Carroll herself was instrumental in the bill passing into law.

To the best of my knowledge, she did not have any role in that law passing into law. It was sponsored by Manhattan Democrats Sen. Brad Hoylman and Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal, and it was modeled on Hoylman and Rosenthal's Child Victims Act, which had previously been passed (and obviously had nothing to do with Carroll's case). It is possible that Carroll lobbied to pass the bill, but I have not seen any indication that she did so, and as you note, it had broad bipartisan support, which would have been unlikely to have been the case if she had been involved, since she had already made allegations against Trump.

[N.E. Brigand]

Donald Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, yesterday wrote to Judge Kaplan with allegations that he failed to disclose that he had been a mentor to E. Jean Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan (no relation) when they worked at the same law firm. Today Roberta Kaplan responded to note that it was a very big law firm and that as far as she can remember from the period they overlapped at the firm in 1992-94, they never worked together.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

She also suggested that she might file a Rule 11 motion for sanctions against Habba for filing a document that had no factual or legal support. The sole basis for Habba's allegations was a bogus NY Post story.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Now Habba has submitted a new letter saying, in essence, "never mind."

[RoseMorninStar]

Top notch lawyer.

[N.E. Brigand]

Ken White makes some useful points about this case, including this one:

[As] both criminal lawyers and civil litigators will tell you, cases routinely turn on key issues that come down to one person’s word against another. That might be a cop’s word about what a suspect said, or it might be a CEO’s word about whether a fact was disclosed in a pitch meeting. But it is absolutely mundane for juries to be asked to weigh one person’s version of events against another’s. Usually one of those people isn’t a billionaire former President with unending access to top lawyers and political connections. Poor people are generally not sued for millions of dollars, because poor people don’t have even hundreds of dollars. But poor people routinely suffer in our system based on a single person’s word. They are denied bail, convicted of crimes, their probation revoked. They are evicted and their benefits are cut and they lose custody of kids. The word of a single person — a cop, a landlord, a bureaucrat — is commonly treated as inherently more believable than theirs. In happens every second.

I have seen and heard lots of people over the past few weeks complain that with this verdict, the floodgates will open to men being found liable for (or guilty of) rape based on just the word of one accuser. Besides the response above, White also notes that Trump didn't present any witnesses and didn't testify himself. It wasn't "she said / he said" but just "she said," perhaps because "'he' is so transparently narcissistic, unlikable, and incredible that it would be suicidal to testify."

[N.E. Brigand]

Donald Trump's right hand today appeared to have several bloody welts on it there were not there yesterday. There is speculation that this could represent something more serious, but it's probably just that he fell overnight and doesn't want to admit it.

This is a pretty deep cut (captioned: "Trump campaigning in the 2026 midterms") ... Probably the best scene in that movie. "The Jerusalem has come."

In an interview today, Donald Trump said of the blemishes seen on his right hand two weeks ago: "Maybe it's AI."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I have seen and heard lots of people over the past few weeks complain that with this verdict, the floodgates will open to men being found liable for (or guilty of) rape based on just the word of one accuser. Besides the response above, White also notes that Trump didn't present any witnesses and didn't testify himself. It wasn't "she said / he said" but just "she said," perhaps because "'he' is so transparently narcissistic, unlikable, and incredible that it would be suicidal to testify."

There are not many men who have been caught on tape for a television show bragging about engaging in exactly the conduct that he was found liable for. In my opinion, that is why the jury found that he had committed sexual assault by

Hidden text.

penetrating Carroll with his fingers

rather than

Hidden text.

penerating her with his penis

even though she alleged that he did both.

It was easier for the jury to believe the former because they had heard him brag about basically doing exactly that.

[N.E. Brigand]

Donald Trump announced yesterday that he's looking for legal representation to appeal this case. Some people interpreted this as an affront to his attorney Alina Habba -- and I've already seen some Trump supporters using her as a scapegoat -- but it's not unusual to hire lawyers who specialize in appeals when that need arises.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'll put this here even though it is only tangentially related to this case. In a recent interview, Carroll's attorney Roberta Kaplan described how when she was taking Trump’s deposition at Mar-a-Lago in another case Trump threw a fit and tossed papers all over the place when he learned that Alina Habba had arranged to give Kaplan lunch (a common courtesy)
Much worse, she describes how at the end of the day Trump said to her "see you next Tuesday," even though the next session was scheduled for Wednesday. I just learned what "see you next Tuesday" means. It is bad. Very bad.

[Jude]

What does it mean?

Edit: never mind, googled it