NY – Ex POTUS Donald Trump, sued by E. Jean Carroll, DT found liable re sexual assault, $5M award, countersuit dismissed, appeal rejected, 2023

[Chelly]

Did the jury get instructions yet? Did I miss that?

Jury has received instructions. They are about to deliberate.

 

[Chelly]

@innercitypress
·
17m

Judge Kaplan: Let's talk about the verdict. When you reach a verdict, the foreperson is to write a note, verdict, put it in a sealed envelope to me. I will summon those who need to be here. It's 11:30 - I'm going to let the lawyers go out for lunch

 

[Stunned]

And so it begins….

 

[legalmomma]

How long do you all think they will be out?
I'm guessing before dinner time. I don't think it will be a quick one.

 

[Kavya01]

How long do you all think they will be out?
I'm guessing before dinner time. I don't think it will be a quick one.

I keep vascillating. Mainly now I am just nailbiting, brrr. But I will maybe guess somewhere in the middle, 2 to 2 and a half hours..

 

[Chelly]

How long do you all think they will be out?
I'm guessing before dinner time. I don't think it will be a quick one.

Hoping for a verdict today. A verdict today would send a clear message, IMO

 

[BritsKate]

Well, I’m not sure. My point is anyone at anytime can just accuse someone of a SA without any proof at all. It’s basically their word against the accused. Just not sure how anyone can convict with any proof it happened.

Just a reminder that there are 26 women who have publicly made allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump, spanning decades.

(And false accusations of sexual assault are exceedingly rare.)

 

[legalmomma]

The verdict form

https://twitter.com/x/status/1655968555282702343

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Just a reminder that there are 26 women who have publicly made allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump, spanning decades.

(And false accusations of sexual assault are exceedingly rare.)

RBBM -- Because who would want to put themselves through that (other than Letecia Stauch)

 

[Stunned]

Has the twice impeached, criminally indicted, one term ex president tweeted today or is he golfing?

 

[sds71]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1655975315271712794

 

[musicaljoke]

Yes you are probably right. Anyone would fight for their reputation but it still doesn’t mean he did it based on her word alone. I guess that’s where I’m hung up (and usually am hung up on these types of cases)

There are usually some clues that the accusation is true even without witnesses. In this particular case, a big clue is the evidence that T said himself about the way he grabs women without their consent.

Another clue, which in this case makes it easier than some SA trials, is that the accused has a long-standing, proven pattern of lying, misogynist behaviour, and dishonesty.

Another clue is the mental damage caused by the SA which in many cases causes a shift in the victim's behaviour. A straight A student might suddenly be doing poorly at school. A woman might stop having intimate attachments to men. This isn't always the case, but when that lines up, it suggests that the SA occurred as the victim reported it.

Another clue is whether or not anyone else ever knew about it. This isn't always reliable because many women, especially those who grew up in the 20th century, were not trained how to handle SA.

Another clue is whether or not the details told by the victim line up with the facts. If it was in a store, was there a store in operation at that time? Does the account ring true to those who worked in the store? Was there a change room where the victim said the assault took place?

jmo

 

[musicaljoke]

It is kind of a no brainer. So why am I so nervous?

Because we live in a world where justice is not meted out equally for weak as well as the rich and powerful.

 

[Gut_feeling]

Trump lawyer calls writer’s rape claim an ‘affront to justice’ in closing arguments

Former President Trump’s attorney Monday called writer E. Jean Carroll’s claim that Trump raped her decades ago an “affront to justice” that minimizes “real rape victims.” In his closing argu…

thehill.com

Former President Trump’s attorney Monday called writer E. Jean Carroll’s claim that Trump raped her decades ago an “affront to justice” that minimizes “real rape victims.”

In his closing arguments, Joe Tacopina dismissed Carroll’s federal civil trial against Trump as a “scam of a lawsuit” based on an “unbelievable story.”

“What they want is for you to hate him enough to ignore the facts,” Tacopina

"Real rape victims" like his first wife (before she recanted her claim)?
Also, it's not that I "hate him enough to ignore the facts", I hate him BECAUSE of the facts.

 

[JerseyGirl]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics/carroll-trump-jury-deliberations/index.html

This is not a criminal trial. In a civil suit like Carroll's, the jury must determine whether Carroll's legal team proved that Trump committed battery against Carroll by a preponderance of the evidence.

To prove her defamation claim, the jury must find that Carroll's legal team proved by the preponderance of the evidence that Trump knew it was false when he published the statement about Carroll last year and knowingly exposed her to public ridicule. They must also determine that she proved by clear and convincing evidence that the statement was false, and that Trump made the statement with actual malice.

Both the preponderance of the evidence standard and the clear and convincing evidence standard are not as high a standard as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is used in criminal cases. Clear and convincing evidence is higher than preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not. Clear and convincing evidence leaves no substantial doubt in the juror's mind and establishes that the proposition is highly probable.

The jury must be unanimous to reach a verdict but can reach a different verdict on each of the two claims -- battery and defamation.

 

[AzPistonsGirl]

maybe him saying he is "not allowed to speak or defend" himself is from his attorneys. Perhaps they told him, unequivocally, that he absolutely cannot give testimony.

ha ha ha as if

 

[legalmomma]

“I would not be surprised if Roberta Kaplan moves by order to show cause for dramatic financial sanctions on former President Trump for today’s untruthful post on Truth Social,” said Epner, a partner for the firm Rottenberg Lipman Rich PC.

On cusp of deliberations, Trump falsely claims on Truth Social that he's 'not allowed to speak or defend' himself

Despite claiming he was "not allowed to speak or defend" himself, former President Donald Trump actually declined multiple attempts to testify before the jury.

lawandcrime.com

 

[Gut_feeling]

This exactly, and nervous because it will be so hard to keep the faith in the system if Jury comes down on the side of DJT on this

The confirmation of Brett Kavenaugh already destroyed my faith in the system. At this point, I look at it like a roll of the dice. Obviously I'm hoping he is held accountable, but I can't ignore what we've all been shown over the years.

 

[crussell821]

The confirmation of Brett Kavenaugh already destroyed my faith in the system. At this point, I look at it like a roll of the dice. Obviously I'm hoping he is held accountable, but I can't ignore what we've all been shown over the years.

Taking it back further, look how Anita Hill was treated.

 

[Gut_feeling]

Taking it back further, look how Anita Hill was treated.

Exactly. It is shameful and absurd. It's the Supreme Court. Tainted by a couple of loser men who think they can just take from a woman, because why not?