Former President Donald Trump appeared before a federal appeals court on Friday, seeking a new trial in the lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll.
According to The Hill, Trump's attorney argued that errors in the original trial, which resulted in a multimillion-dollar verdict against Trump, warrant a fresh hearing.
The appeal focused on whether the trial judge made a mistake by allowing the jury to hear testimony from two other women who accused Trump of sexual assault, as well as the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape. Trump's legal team contends that these elements unfairly influenced the jury's decision in Carroll's case, which involved allegations of sexual abuse and defamation.
During the proceedings, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, argued that federal evidence rules should not have permitted the testimony of the two additional accusers. Sauer emphasized the case's nature, describing it as a "quintessential 'he said, she said' case." The legal team's strategy centered on challenging the admissibility of this evidence, which they believe significantly impacted the jury's verdict.
Circuit Judge Denny Chin noted the difficulty of overturning a jury verdict based on evidentiary rulings, highlighting the uphill battle Trump's legal team faces in this appeal. The three-judge panel, all appointed by Democratic presidents, conducted a focused hearing lasting less than thirty minutes.
Roberta Kaplan, representing Carroll, countered Trump's arguments by framing the case as a routine application of federal evidence rules. She emphasized the trial judge's extensive experience and argued that even if errors were made in admitting the testimony, they were ultimately harmless to the case's outcome.
The original trial stemmed from Carroll's allegations that Trump sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s and subsequently defamed her when she made these claims public during his presidency. A jury sided with Carroll, ordering Trump to pay $5 million in damages.
Trump, who maintains his innocence, did not attend the original trial but was present for Friday's appeal hearing. This marks a shift in his approach, as he previously blamed his lawyers for the unfavorable verdict in the initial case.
It's worth noting that this appeal does not address a separate case where Carroll was awarded $83.3 million from Trump over additional defamation claims. While Trump is also appealing that verdict, it was not the subject of Friday's proceedings.
The crux of Trump's appeal lies in the inclusion of testimony from two women who accused him of sexual assault in unrelated incidents from 1979 and 2005. Trump's legal team argues that allowing this testimony, along with the "Access Hollywood" tape, unfairly prejudiced the jury against him.
Sauer, speaking passionately about the case, was at one point asked to slow down by the judges due to his rapid delivery. His argument centered on the idea that these additional pieces of evidence should not have been admissible under federal rules.
Kaplan, for her part, argued that despite the high-profile nature of the case and the parties involved, it ultimately boils down to standard legal procedures. She stated:
Despite the prominence of this case and the parties involved, it really just involves the routine application of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
This appeal represents a critical juncture in the ongoing legal battle between Trump and Carroll. The court's decision will not only affect the specific case at hand but may also influence how similar high-profile defamation cases are handled in the future. The focus on evidentiary rules and their application in such cases underscores the delicate balance courts must strike between allowing relevant testimony and protecting defendants from unfair prejudice.
