Closing arguments in Jean Carroll’s civil case against Trump
It’s no surprise that newspapers almost uniformly refer to this in their headlines as a rape case. And while it’s true that Carroll alleges that Trump raped her, that’s not the charge. The actual charges are battery and defamation. There’s almost no evidence other than “she said he said” – and date, time, and even the year in which the act is supposed to have occurred are not pinpointed.
Take a look [my emphasis]:
[Judge] Kaplan instructed the nine jurors at the trial’s start that the central claim pertains to “battery.”
He said that in a civil case, battery can result from even the slightest unlawful touching of another person.
“The law does not draw a line between different degrees of violence. It totally prohibits all unconsented-to touching from the least to the most violent that a reasonable person would find offensive. In other words, anything from a gentle but unwanted peck on the cheek to stabbing somebody with a knife could be battery for purposes of a civil case like this one,” Kaplan said.
By that standard, most politicians might be at risk of such suits, and certainly Joe Biden would be guilty of said unwanted touchings. Does lumping all those things together legally really seem like a good idea?
More:
The jurors will be asked to decide whether Carroll has proven that Trump committed battery. If they decide that Trump committed battery, they are expected to be asked to what degree. After that, Carroll’s attorney has proposed that jurors be asked separately whether Carroll has proven that Trump engaged in forcible touching, sexual abuse and rape. The judge has yet to make a decision on that proposal.
The trial also involves a claim by Carroll that Trump made defamatory comments while denying her allegations.
For defamation, jurors will be asked if Carroll had proven that Trump’s statement was defamatory and whether clear and convincing evidence had proven that Trump made the statement maliciously.
He said she was lying and also that she wasn’t his type. Should either of those things be classified as defamation, when the first is a person’s attempt to defend himself or herself, and the second is merely a personal opinion? I don’t think in either case it ever should be considered defamation, and I don’t care who is being sued, Trump or Biden or Joe Shmo. If a person is accused of something, that person’s protestations that the accuser is lying – that person’s defense of himself or herself – should be protected speech. And opinions about whether one is attracted to another person also cannot be defamatory, in my opinion. But of course, I don’t make the law.
Also:
Earlier on Monday, Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan said a 2005 “Access Hollywood” video in which Trump says women let him “grab ’em by the pussy” bolstered the accounts of Carroll and other women who accuse Trump of sexual assault.
“He admitted on video to doing exactly the kinds of things that have brought us here to this courtroom,” Kaplan said in her closing argument.
Now, maybe the following has changed since I was in law school – quite a few things have. But back then, it was considered a hallmark of our legal system that a court case should only involve the facts of that case. After the verdict, in the sentencing phase, other things could be allowed into the record. But I don’t believe that a statement made by the defendant that was not about the plaintiff – and Trump’s “grab them” statements were not about Carroll, nor are they alleged to be – would have been allowed into evidence back then (I could be wrong; I’m doing this from memory). What’s more, the “grab them” tape was made in 2005, approximately ten years after the battery against Carroll is alleged to have occurred.
In addition, Carroll’s suit against Trump was only allowed all these years after the statute of limitations on such suits had expired, because New York passed a special law, conveniently allowing such things for a year:
The trial [which began] Tuesday stems from a second lawsuit filed in November 2022, alleging defamation and battery under New York State’s new Adult Survivors Act. The legislation opened a one-year window in which people who say they were the survivors of sexual abuse as adults could sue even if the state’s statute of limitations would otherwise bar their claims.
I don’t think there’s any question that one of the motives for this law was to get Trump. But there’s a reason for statutes of limitation, and those reasons are apparent in the current trial. Memories fade, the allegations are not tied to a particular date, and how can Trump ever defend himself against something so vague in time, or find witnesses or schedules that could exonerate him? It’s a travesty, and I would say that no matter who the defendant in such a case might be. The only possibly justifiable exception might be if someone was a child when the alleged battery happened, and even then I come down more on the side of protecting the defendant from false claims – and false claims do occur, and not just against politicians.
Nevertheless, I believe this jury will find Trump guilty, although I don’t think the evidence justifies it. I would be quite flabbergasted if they didn’t find him guilty.
The jury won’t pay attention to the facts or the jury instructions which recite the law.
NYC is lawless.
Juries, judges, and prosecutors in blue zones have been making the TWANLOC problem grossly manifest. This case is absurd.
The judge, like the judge in the Alvin Bragg case, has already decided what verdict he wants and how to get it. I did not realize that “battery” after all this time could be a criminal charge. This an obvious setup and I wonder its effect on his campaign for the nomination. His poll numbers keep climbing and DeSantis’ are falling.
James Michael Curley was re-elected from prison.
Of course he’ll be ‘found guilty’. He’ll be ‘found guilty’ over and over in upcoming trials. Until he ‘gives up’ and endorses Vivek Ramaswamy, which won’t please the Uniparty … imo.
How about her “rape fantasies” comment in the interview she did?
Her claims about how the rape happened don’t add up. It suggests the rape happened standing up and face to face.
I think an NYC jury and judge would convict Trump for the murder of JFK, McKinley and Garfield. They dont care.
My anti Trump brother in law was condemning Trump and calling him guilty while his wife and I defended Trump . BTY its a shonda that he didnt know who Potifers wife was.
I said the trial should have been moved to a more neutral venue, of course he was against that. He said wherever it goes the jurors have the same media. I then asked him if the media und Müller should apologize for the Russia hoax, and he got angry that the hoax failed. so much for not bearing false witness.
avi:
At least he’s your brother in law and not your brother.
He probably would judge Joseph guilty, too.
Neo
lol!
Now that they are busily cutting down all the laws, what shall those on the left do, when those on the right finally decide they can bear no more, turn around en masse and comes for them?
Mao tried to warn them… ultimately power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Cut down all the laws and nothing else remains.
GB: they have no wisdom
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
? Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
The particular unlawful touching that Carroll alleges is sexual assault. The blackletter definition of battery doesn’t really come into play unless the jury determines that Carroll has failed to prove sexual assault, but has proven some lesser toucing. Unless the judge gives a specific instruction on sexual assault, I guess that means that
I agree with neo about the defamation claim. It looks like an end-run on the statute of limitations, which became unnecessary after the NY legislature removed the SOL for this case.
I also agree with neo about the stale evidence because of the lifted statute of limitations. This case really can’t be decided on anything other than the jury’s judgement on the credibility of Carroll and her witnesses – which 30 year old memory is accurate? Juries decide based on the credibility of conflicting witnesses all the time, though.
I also agree with neo about the stale evidence because of the lifted statute of limitations. This case really can’t be decided on anything other than the jury’s judgement on the credibility of Carroll and her witnesses – which 30 year old memory is accurate? Juries decide based on the credibility of conflicting witnesses all the time, though.
==
Carroll doesn’t have any witnesses, just a pair of gal pals willing to say she told them about something. It isn’t a question of ‘accuracy’, either.
Art Deco – They stood up and swore on a Bible under penalty of perjury. That makes them witnesses, although granted with the type of he-said, she-said allegations that they’re making there is almost zero chance that they would ever be prosecuted for perjury even if the relevant authorities were inclined to do so, which they are not.
Frankly, though, I’m not 100% sure that they are lying. Maybe 70% or 80% sure, certainly but not 100%. Trump is a cad. He was an open and admitted adulterer. He regularly allows himself to be filmed making crude comments about women, and not just with the Access Hollywood thing, but the Megan Kelly thing and more. He regularly comments on womens’ appearance and whether they are or are not “his type.”
Is it really inconceivable that he tried to have his way with women in his younger days, maybe the way he described in the Access Hollywood video? The 1980’s and 1990’s were a different time.
The answer is no. Not it is not inconceivable that there is some truth to these allegations. One might counter with “but the left does this.” Yes they do. More likely than not, this is just a more sophisticated version of the Kavanaugh and Thomas hits. But the left’s hits on Kavanaugh and Thomas failed. Trump is about to lose a battery judgement over an alleged sexual assault. The difference between those two outcomes is down to Trump.
Finally – can you really imagine how Kavanaugh would have turned out if he had anything like the Access Hollywood tape or responded to Ford by insisting that she wasn’t his type (after there was evidence that he had confused Ford with his second of three wives)? Probably about the same way that Carroll v. Trump is about to turn out.
Neo:
You are generally correct about the use/non-use of past crimes. Here is the current rule of evidence in NY, per https://nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/4-RELEVANCE/ARTICLE%204%20RULES.pdf:
“4.28. Evidence of Crimes and Wrongs (Molineux)
“(1) Evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts committed by a person is not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion or had a propensity to engage in a wrongful act or acts. This evidence may be admissible when it is more probative than prejudicial to prove, for example:
“motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or conduct that is inextricably interwoven with the charged acts; or to provide necessary background information or explanation; or to complete the narrative of the subject event or matter.”
Andy McCarthy has a piece on the trial at the NY Post, https://nypost.com/2023/05/08/trumps-grab-her-by-the-tape-may-cost-him-a-rape-trial-and-the-presidency/. But he doesn’t even bother to discuss the issue you raise about past acts.
I don’t know how the judge got past “more probative than prejudicial” (assuming Trump’s attorneys objected to this evidence).
Presumably, the judge gave or will give an instruction that the women’s testimony and the tape cannot (technically) be used to prove the events at issue in the trial. But, duh, they’re so prejudicial that who would take them any other way?
Frankly, though, I’m not 100% sure that they are lying.
==
There’s a reason no one here respects you.
If her name were Mairzy Dotes, could she have brought this case?
If his name were Joe Biden would she have brought this case?
Forget logic, law and lapses! This case was brought because…TRUMP!
Guilty…damages?!
“Will you sleep with me for a million dollars”
“Yes…”
“Will you sleep with me for a dollar?”
“What do you take me for…?!!”
“Well we know what you are! all that remains is to negotiate your price!”
There isnt any evidence there is evidence of everyone visiting epsteins island like the current cia director of every abomination the first spawn committed but we cant touch any of them
https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1655918385786503168?cxt=HHwWgIC-nfO_gPstAAAA
@Bauxite
Agreed.
Given the debacles that have come out of judge instructions lately, I wouldn’t put much past it.
Indeed, which is another reason why I regard this case as illegitimate. Tailored legal targeting of individuals is supposed to be illegal and unconstitutional, but such is Current Year.
The issue I think you are overlooking is the curricula vitae and other issues. Carroll has to not merely appear credible but also identify a time when this could have happened, and Trump for all of his flaws has a WELL documented, long public life. So it is quite possible she will trip herself up.
Agreed, unfortunately. We still haven’t had Kavanaugh’s accusers face the music.
Had you been able to stop yourself here, I’d agree with you. But you just can’t help yourself.
Bluntly, the Access Hollywood nonsense described nothing criminal, and not like what Carroll described. Something unethical, gross, and so on? Sure. Certainly. But not criminal. Which is why part of me is convinced the brouhaha about it was to distract away from Trump accurately describing how many women (and others) would happily go open for people that were rich, powerful, and at least somewhat attractive. Hell, Weinstein didn’t even have that last part.
Which is the issue. As a matter of law I’m not concerned about Trump doing what he said he did on the Access Hollywood tapes; that would just be in line with his skirt chasing ways that we are familiar with. But sexual assault is another can of worms.
Fair.
And here I thought you said that this was different from the Kavanuagh and Thomas hits?
BARELY.
And they certainly succeeded with others, such as Roy Moore, whom I also know you liked condemning as a creep and weak candidate which can be true and also not take away from the fact that they claimed his scalp there.
No, it is due to the venues. Kavanaugh and Thomas were tried in the limelight with Congress in its judicial role, which allowed all sides to air what they had and helped destroy Ford and co as they made their impotent attacks, since as bad as much of the Republican representation was it was not so feeble they would allow Kavanaugh and Thomas to be railroaded.
NYC Civil Suit is different for multiple reasons. For starters, it does not carry the same level of scrutiny or decorum. “Preponderance of evidence” vs. Reasonable Doubt. Moreover, there is not the same kind of limelight or resources that helped destroy Ford’s credibility. And finally, NYC is far more tainted and politicized than Congress since it has been a Dem city for decades, with precious few deviations.
All of these are ultimately more important than Trump’s public misadventures, and the fact that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge this because of your Concerned Conservative Hunting The Great Orange Whale shtick is fucking absurd and thoroughly undermines your credibility.
Nice try, but no.
Ford was defeated not because Kavanuagh was such a boy scout (though that helped) but because of the balance of terror in Congress preventing a railroad, PLUS Kavanaugh’s representatives and expert witnesses crushing Ford on the stand with her lies, hypocrisies, inconsistencies, and general idiocy. And the fact that she was the MOST CREDIBLE of the accusers speaks volumes to “not sending their best.”
Which brings us back to a fact you don’t seem to understand, probably because you are laboriously trying to avoid addressing it.
While we can argue grimly about whether the US still lives up to the ideal, the ideal was that the MERITS OF THE CASE were more important than the merits of the People. That not even Ted Bundy deserved to go down for a murder he did not commit. And when the process is allowed to work itself out properly – complete with adversarial examination of the accusers and their claims – it mostly works.
Had Kavanaugh said what Trump did, Ford would still be a hypocritical, proven liar and an idiot, and would have still been crushed on the stand. The precious feelings and impressions and Left-Wing Trutherism about Kavanaugh would almost certainly have been reinforced by Kavanuagh saying the things Trump did, but fortunately the power of Left-Wing Trutherism is still limited, for now.
But pointing out the basic, solid foundations of Kavanuagh’s case and why he actually survived Ford undermines your obsessions with personality and love for demonizing Trump. So you will ignore it. Again.
Just like you have professed you intend to ignore my comments because you apparently don’t like people calling your bullshit out in somewhat salty language.
Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.
Knowing what we know about Trump, I guess it’s possible that he could have had sex in a department store dressing room. Knowing what we know about Carroll, it’s more likely that she’s not telling the truth — not telling the truth about whether the incident was rape, or more likely, not telling the truth about whether it happened it all. If she wasn’t consciously lying, she may be delusional and unable to distinguish truth from fantasy.
I can’t see taking the Access Hollywood tape as evidence or an indication that Trump could be a rapist. Many recent presidents have used the p-word and talked in ways not so different from Trump, though they weren’t recorded on tape. It’s the locker room talk that men of our time and our parents’ indulge in. Were they all rapists?
But of course, case after case reinforces the unwillingness of voters to support Trump next year.
So the jury did find for Carroll. I guess they felt she was entitled to “Her Truth.”
Trump never said he’d grabbed a woman by her private parts. I’m amazed by how often that claim goes unremarked.
PJ:
He said other things, though. Here’s the transcript.
Just think folks, we have a few more of these “bombshell” & “the walls are closing in” bonanza’s to go through with DJT…the New York “hush money/Stormy Daniels” Braggs case, the Georgia election “tampering case”, the Jan. 6 DOJ/Jack Smith investigation, the Mar-a-Largo classified document Jack Smith investigation & last but not least, the NY AG Leticia James fraud case. Whew!
Carroll’s allegations are right out of the Christine Blasey Ford road map (recall the latter accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her).
Both accusers were either paid and/or encouraged to come forward with their claims despite neither of them having one shred of hard evidence nor anyone who could corrorborate their allegations with any degree of veracity.
In Carroll’s case, I would not be surprised if the original impetus for her to file allegations originated in the Biden White House.
IF Trump were not running for prez, there would be no legal actions against him from anyone – from Bragg, Letita James, the Atlanta, Ga DA’s etc.
The USA has no moral authority at all to lecture other nations about anything.