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

[Voronwë the Faithful]

My understanding is that two different people will testify, under oath, that Carroll told them what Trump (allegedly) did to her, shortly after it happened and thus long before SVU presented a television episode about a similar (fictional) event. My suspicion is that it all comes down to whether the jury finds those people credible.

It is the gravamen of the defense case that Carroll concocted this story in collaboration with those two women, Lisa Birnbach and Carol Martin. So the fact that they will testify that Carroll told them about the rape before the SVU episode aired will not help mitigate the damage of that fact. Either the jury is going to believe that all three of them concocted this story influenced by the SVU episode, or they are going to believe that it is just a coincidence. Obviously, having an episode in a TV show that is all about "sexually-based offenses" that involves a rape in a department store fitting room is not all that big of a coincidence, but having it be the same (relatively less well-known) department store is a bit more of a stretch. Particularly when combined with the fact that there are emails between Carroll and Martin in particular that can at least be potentially interpreted as them scheming about something.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I assume Tacopina is working up to some final "gotcha" moment. He told the judge about an hour ago that his cross-examination would wrap about now.

So far as I could tell, he just kinda peetered out.

[N.E. Brigand]

I vaguely remembered Trump supporters citing the 2012 Special Victims Unit episode at the time time Carroll shared her story, but never looked into it. Turns out the claims were fact-checked at the time. The episode is less like what Caroll describes than today's cross-examination might imply:

"It’s true that the clip came from that episode of 'Law & Order: Special Victims Unit,' which originally aired in 2012. But it actually shows a character describing his various consensual role-playing encounters. This is the entire description he gave: 'Role-play took place in the dressing room of Bergdorf's. While she was trying on lingerie I would burst in.' Carroll’s account, however, is detailed over the course of about 1,800 words."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm not sure what the point of that "fact check" article is. Obviously, the two situations are not identical. It would be truly bizarre if they were. The point is not that they are identical, but that they are similar enough to suggest that Carroll based her "story" on that episode, and embellished it from there. Not only do they both involve fitting rooms at the same high end department store, they also both involve some kind of role-playing related to trying on lingerie.

I thought that Tacopina's cross-examination was truly awful, but the SVU episode is real issue. Or would be in the hands of a more competent attorney.

[Dave_LF]

It would be pretty bizarre for them not to alter those obvious details if they had really used that story as a starting point, but yeah, I buy that the line of argument could perhaps be used to plant a reasonable doubt.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Fortunately, the standard here is not reasonable doubt, but simply the preponderance of the evidence, since it is a civil case and not a criminal case. I don't think that prosecutors would be able to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt, but I do think that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that it is more likely than than not that Trump did rape Carroll and then defame her about it, and that is all that needs to be proven.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

From Lisa Rubin,

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And from Adam Klasfield, capturing nuance that is not captured by Inner City Press, on the end of Tacopina's truly awful cross-examination:

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think this exchange, captured by Klasfeld, helps illustrate the point that Rubin was making:



Some jurors might have a hard time relating to that side of Carroll, but Tacopina has done most of the work for her attorneys in mitigating that issue already.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This, from the testimony of Jessica Leeds, who alleges that Trump sexually assaulted her on an airplace by grabbing her breast and putting his hand up her skirt, really struck me.

[N.E. Brigand]

Interesting: Donald Trump's lawyer told the court that Trump will not be presenting a defense case.

Do the plaintiffs get to introduce statements that Trump made when deposed? And if so, what's the process for that?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

My understanding is that Carroll's will be able to introduce portions of Trump's deposition that they want to use as part of their case-in-chief, but that Trump's attorneys will be able to supplement those excerpts with other portions that they assert give proper context.

I thought Trump's lawyers were planning to call one witness, an expert to rebut Carroll's expert, but maybe they changed their mind.

ETA: I see that in fact Carroll's attorney stated that Trump's expert was not going to testify (which is weird that she informed the court of that) and that then Tacopina confirmed that they will be no defense case.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Trump says he is coming. Tacopina says, no he is not.

[RoseMorninStar]

As I've been hearing Trump, and some Republicans in congress, seem to believe that the court of public opinion (and theater for news clips/sound bites) is the only court that matters. I'm guessing lawyers disagree.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Regarding the testimony of Natasha Stoynoff, the People Magazine writer who alleges that Trump assaulted her at Mar-a-Lago when she was doing a story on him and Melania, when Melenia left the room briefly.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't think this needs any comment.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here's Trump claiming that he is going to attend the trial, attacking the judge, and defaming Carroll yet again.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The circus may be coming to town.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Or maybe not.