Former President Donald Trump must pay writer E. Jean Carroll over $83 million in damages for repeatedly defaming her, a jury found Friday.
The nine-person jury began deliberations in federal court in New York at 1:40 p.m. ET and reached a verdict in just under three hours.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Former President Donald Trump must pay writer E. Jean Carroll over $83 million in damages for repeatedly defaming her, a jury found Friday.
Trump had already been found liable for defaming Carroll while he was president by mocking her allegation that he’d sexually abused her, so this jury was only tasked with determining how much she should be paid in damages.
Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan asked the jury for at least $24 million in compensatory damages for the harm she suffered and “lots and lots of money” in punitive damages to stop him from continuing to defame her.
Trump’s attorney Alina Habba contended that Carroll “had failed to show she is entitled to any damages at all” because she “actively sought the comments and the attention” she received.
A different jury last year found Trump liable for sexually abusing her in a New York City department store in the 1990s and for defaming her by mocking her claims after he left the White House.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan found Trump liable for defamation in the current case based on that jury’s findings.
The original article contains 340 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 46%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Wow, 3x the money in punitive damage. Imagine how bad it’d be if this country did anything but fine rich people for being evil…
I overshot the damages award in a previous comment I made. I thought it was going to be closer to $150 million, but $83 million is still substantial. Plus there is a strong likelihood E. Jean Carroll and Robbie Kaplan could sue Donald Trump for defamation again for all the things he posted during this trial.
It’s already happening. He’s probably defaming her on Truth Social right now while OD’ing on McDonald’s.
Well he a billionaire so $83 million is a drop in the bucket. He’s probably got that much as change in the couch /s
Waiting for the SCOTUS to (again) reduce punitive damage limits in order to protect their special boy.
Historically, they HATE punitive civil damages and look for cases to cut them back. That’s where the current ~4x limit currently exists, which even in the State Farm decision was clearly flagged as toeing the line.
Just look at how little actual damage Exxon ever paid for the Valdez spill. Or McDonalds for the hot coffee. These punitive damages always have a habit of just evaporating after the headlines. Leaving the victim little better off than before.
I doubt that will happen. This is round two of defaming her; it’s already been established that he raped and defamed her, and it is glaringly obvious that he did it again (even before this verdict). His team will have to first appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, and it’s very unlikely that they’ll even hear it.
SCOTUS isn’t likely to do him a favor but virtue of the highest court in NY not hearing it and this being a very obvious case of repeat offense. They suck right now, and they’ve made some really awful arguments and rulings, but they haven’t exactly been a rubber stamp for Trump or Conservatives, either.
Thanks for the sanity check. I’m not lover of the current Court, but no, they’re not partisan (ruling for the GOP or Trump).
Been collecting cases to show this. Only been going a week so far:
It’s a civil case, unfortunately, so jail time was never an option. At the time the incident occurred, there was a five year statute of limitations, so Trump has never been charged criminally in the matter.
Trump’s attorney Alina Habba contended that Carroll “had failed to show she is entitled to any damages at all” because she “actively sought the comments and the attention” she received.
Wow. They actually used the “she was asking for it” argument against a victim of sexual assault.
Also, he’s still not going to shut up about it and will land back in court under additional defamation charges.
Not exactly. It’s far more insidious (and stupid). Her tact was to show that Carroll already received her financial reward by all the books and news appearances (i.e. the “comments and attention”). Basically, “Sure, she was raped, but look how well she profited from it!”
Too bad that kind of argument is only really relevant to the first trial. This one was punitive damages for failing to shut up after losing the first one, the purpose of which is to punish Trump so he thinks twice about doing it again, not award reparations to Ms. Carroll.
Alina Habba is truly the lawyer Trump deserves.
I agree, and my comment was intended as a reference not to the original rape but to the defense saying that she did not deserve any additional compensation due to Trump’s ongoing defamation because she wanted to profit off of it.
If I remember, one of his initial defenses against the allegations of rape was that the woman accusing him was too unattractive to rape, while other defenses were “they just let you do it.” I was thinking about the ironic application of the “asking for it” argument being applied to the additional judgement of defamation.
He’s going to triple down on this though, because he never thinks twice about anything. I don’t know if he is actually playing the game of “never admit to being wrong even when you are” or if he’s simply delusional enough to have reconstructed reality in his own brain, but I’d lay a wager that he’s not going to be able to shut up about this, even now. I don’t think it will even take a reporter triggering him by asking about it. I think it’s just going to pop out in one of his word salad campaign rambles.
I think it’s just going to pop out in one of his word salad campaign rambles.
And I can’t wait for that to happen, because I’m sure a third jury will be so pleased (/s) he did it a third time.
If a girl ask you to have sex with her and latter says she was rapped. How do you prove it?
Or the other way, if a couple are ready to have sex and he starts to be agresive to the point she does not want to any more, how does she proves it?
When there are only 2 people in the room, how do you prove the otherone is not telling the truth?
She will never see a dime. He gets away with it again, and he will continue to until he is actually taken into custody.
This is different. All his properties in New York are under receivership. If and when they are forcibly sold to pay the judgement in the New York Civil fraud trial any remaining funds will go directly to E. Jean Carroll as she will be a lien holder on those assets.
It won’t matter he will just delay and appeal till he dies and then his kids will do the same thing and sue to keep it from ever happening
Appeals are not an infinite process, and as we have already seem multiple times just this month the New York State Court of Appeals has either denied his requests for appeal or swiftly ruled against him. Sometimes the rock hard cock of the law does catch up with you.
As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
Edit: I changed my initial statement because I forgot this case was in federal court not state court.
IIRC he has to put up a cash bond equal to the value of the judgement in order to appeal it. In other words he has to come up with $83.3 million in cash in order to appeal. I’m not sure he has that even if he raids the campaign fund.
LO fucking L
