Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case

[jerrymahoney]

4 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

I have never seen a case where a defendant has one charge where he/she is found not guilty while he/she is found guilty on the others called strange and inconsistent and then appealed because the jury did not find not guilty or guilty on all charges.  Is Tacopina a seasoned lawyer........I mean with those comments he seems naïve.

He could be hinting at appeal based on a procedural issue.

[bamnutsak]

2 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

I have never seen a case where a defendant has one charge where he/she is found not guilty while he/she is found guilty on the others called strange and inconsistent and then appealed because the jury did not find not guilty or guilty on all charges.  Is Tacopina a seasoned lawyer........I mean with those comments he seems naïve.

 

 

Yeah, in that post-verdict presser he comes across as clueless. The body language is telling too. I think he was just in a bit of a fog, dealing with the loss, having to tell Trump over the phone and getting screamed at, so he just fumbled his way through, repeating the same phrases.

 

What's the point of an appeal? To get another trial? How is that a good thing for Trump? Playing the deposition tape over and over again?

 

Just fleece your followers for $5 m, pay it and move on. And maybe look for cheaper sex options going forward? Ring up Ms. Daniels, only $130,000 a pop.

 

[jerrymahoney]

3 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

What's the point of an appeal? To get another trial?

An appeal is not a retrial or a new trial of the case. The appeals courts do not usually consider new witnesses or new evidence. Appeals in either civil or criminal cases are usually based on arguments that there were errors in the trial s procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/appeals

 

And Tacopina could get experienced appellate attorneys to join the festivities.

[bamnutsak]

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

An appeal is not a retrial or a new trial of the case.

Understood, but an appeal can/may/could result in a new trial, right?

 

 

From your link...

 

If the appeals court affirms the lower court's judgment, the case ends, unless the losing party appeals to a higher court. The lower court decision also stands if the appeals court simply dismisses the appeal (usually for reasons of jurisdiction).

 

 

If the judgment is reversed, the appellate court will usually send the case back to a lower court ( remand it) and order the trial court to take further action. It may order that

    a new trial be held,
    the trial court's judgment be modified or corrected,
    the trial court reconsider the facts, take additional evidence, or consider the case in light of a recent decision by the appellate court.

 

 

 

 

So yeah, I'm not seeing that an appeal is the smart move. It just raises the ugly spectre of Trump's alleged aberrant behavior.

 

But maybe you know something we don't?

 

[jerrymahoney]

2 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

But maybe you know something we don't?

I only know what the guy says.

 

Appellate law is a specialty. It is just a matter if appellate law specialists look at this and say there are plausible grounds for appeal.

 

Tacopina is not an appellate law specialist.

Edited May 11, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I only know what the guy says.

That's a pretty big call given his propensity for lying.

[jerrymahoney]

Just now, ozimoron said:

That's a pretty big call given his propensity for lying.

I meant Tacopina.

[malibukid]

On 5/10/2023 at 9:19 AM, jerrymahoney said:

The case was filed under a special temporary NY State law that allows for a suspension of statute of limitations for civil only sexual offenses.

 

It was filed in Federal court because the parties have different states of residence i.e. Florida and NY State.

thanks for clearly this up

[jerrymahoney]

16 minutes ago, malibukid said:

thanks for clearly this up

OK.

[sqwakvfr]

4 hours ago, MrJ2U said:

Don't let your narrative get in the way of the truth.

 

Guilty in a court of law.

 

He's got 30 more court dates ahead of him.  Perhaps you can start a go fund me page for the psychopathic liar. 

 

Sad how a former reality star and grifter have fallen. 

What narrative.  A defendant in a criminal trial can be found guilty.  A defendant in a civil trial can be held liable.  Also why would I start a GoFundme page for anyone?  I believe it is you who has let the narrative get ahead. 

[onthedarkside]

Off topic post unrelated to the topic case has been removed

[Lacessit]

10 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

"I understand - you prefer 20 yo airheads. Each to his own." I love those personal attacks for no reason. Thanks for showing your attitude.

 

The question was about his DNA on her dress. That would prove that he was near her. I.e. maybe she gave him a BJ. It doesn't prove if she liked it or not.

 

And if his semen or DNA was inside her that still wouldn't prove he raped her. Did you ever leave DNA in any woman or maybe man? Did you rape that person?

 

I never raped a woman. If a woman would accuse me of raping her then I would be angry at her for such outrageous accusation. I am sure I would say I didn't do it. In private I also might say that she is ugly and old and the last person who I would want to have sex with.

 

Now let's get back to Trump. He is a well known as#%$%4 who is known to talk aggressive about anybody who is not on his side. Trump is like that for a long time. I don't like him and many people don't like him. I am sure he told many women that they are ugly. Is that nice? No. But is it prove that he raped them. No. It is just typical Trump behavior and no prove at all that he raped that woman.

I don't see it as a personal attack, more as a statement of your preferences. I think I have made no secret of my preference for older women, and the reasons for so doing........

You have a very steep hill to climb if you want to argue most 20 yo women are not airheads.

 

My upbringing included the tenets rape, sexual assault and/or molestation of any woman was unthinkable. As was persisting if my interest was unwelcome. I was brought up to regard any man who did so as a moral coward.

 

Back to Trump, who ticks all the boxes of amoral, coward, bully, and sexual predator. The jury did not find against him on the rape complaint, they found against him on the sexual assault and defamation complaints. Stop whinging about a complaint which the jury did not uphold.

 

IMO Trump's chickens are coming home to roost, this is only the first stanza.

[jerrymahoney]

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The jury did not find against him on the rape complaint, they found against him on the sexual assault and defamation complaints.

Yes. The jury's decision was that she was sexually assaulted but not raped.

 

Nowhere, either in her original complaint nor in court testimony, did Ms.  Carroll ever suggest that she was sexually assaulted but not raped.

 

 

[kwilco]

This fiasco says more about the state of the American electorate than Trump himself....... Their absolute, blind faith shows them in a comparable light to Germany in the 1930s. An electorate that has lost its mind.

[MrJ2U]

3 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

What narrative.  A defendant in a criminal trial can be found guilty.  A defendant in a civil trial can be held liable.  Also why would I start a GoFundme page for anyone?  I believe it is you who has let the narrative get ahead. 

Perhaps.

 

Either way it'll be interesting what happens next.  Whatever happens, good or bad Trump seems to garner more voters.

 

Funny enough a friend just asked me to order some Trump books for him (I've got a US Amazon account).  He loves Trump.

 

I'm actually more concerned about what happens in the elections in Thailand this weekend and the war in Ukraine.

 

Enjoy your weekend. 

[billd766]

22 hours ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Senate Republicans question Trump’s 2024 viability after sexual abuse verdict

 

"“I hope the American people, the jury of the American people, reach the same conclusion as the jury of his peers, which is that Donald Trump should not be our nominee and he certainly shouldn’t be president of the United States,” Romney said. “We have other people who are highly qualified that could lead our party to victory, and someone who’s been found to have committed sexual assault should not be the face of the Republican Party.”

There is an easy way to stop him.

 

Just kick him out of the GOP.

 

That however, requires positive action and not just words.

 

 

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

 

 

[billd766]

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Consensual?

You know better than the jury, huh?

This was a civil case with a lower bar than a criminal case.

Chances of a successful appeal are very remote.

Of course he knows better than the jury.

 

Every Trump supporter and MAGA supporter knows that Trump can never be guilty of anything.

[LosLobo]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

Yes. The jury's decision was that she was sexually assaulted but not raped.

 

Nowhere, either in her original complaint nor in court testimony, did Ms.  Carroll ever suggest that she was sexually assaulted but not raped.

 

 

The definition of sexual assault and rape is possibly something unique in NY and is not universal.

 

These definitions vary from country, state and over time. 

 

In fact under US Federal Law it would have been rape.

 

Re: 10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally

[billd766]

9 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Yes. And I'll accept, if there is an appeal, the appellate court's decision. My reason for thinking the appeal has some merit: Tacopina called the verdict 'strange' and 'inconsistent'.

But he is the defendant, Trump's, lawyer.

 

What would you expect him to say?

 

I hope for Tacopina's sake that he is paid upfront by a traceable cheque.

 

Just in case.

 

[jerrymahoney]

14 minutes ago, billd766 said:

But he is the defendant, Trump's, lawyer.

 

What would you expect him to say?

I expect that he might say some things relevant to a possible appeal.

[placeholder]

One of the things that puzzled me throughout the topics about the trial, was how some members were insisting that the case against Trump wasn't going well. Most of the commentators I read, left, right and center, were claiming it was going very badly for Trump.

Anyway, here's a link to an article that explains not only why it went badly for Trump, but why future trials will do so as well.

Trump’s Biggest Blunder in the E. Jean Carroll Trial Will Probably Doom Him in Court Again and Again

The former president shot himself in the foot. He’s got more rounds in the chamber.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/trump-verdict-carroll-trial-takeaways-georgia-doj-ny.html

[jerrymahoney]

Well to the above, I certainly thought there was a chance that one or more jurors would find the evidence not meeting the preponderance of the evidence standard.

 

The jury found that Ms. Carroll's claim that she was raped did not meet the standard. Whether that may factor into the appeal of both the battery and defamation decisions, too soon to say.

Edited May 12, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Well to the above, I certainly thought there was a chance that one or more jurors would find the evidence not meeting the preponderance of the evidence standard.

 

The jury found that Ms. Carroll's claim that she was raped did not meet the standard. Whether that may factor into the appeal of both the battery and defamation decisions, too soon to say.

As has been pointed out already, appeals courts rarely overturn verdicts on the basis of the jurors' verdict.

[jerrymahoney]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

As has been pointed out already, appeals courts rarely overturn verdicts on the basis of the jurors' verdict.

And has been also pointed at per the American Bar Association, appeals courts do not make a decision regading the verdict but concerning a procedural error buy the lower court:

 

An appeal is not a retrial or a new trial of the case. The appeals courts do not usually consider new witnesses or new evidence. Appeals in either civil or criminal cases are usually based on arguments that there were errors in the trial s procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law.

 

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/appeals

[placeholder]

Just now, jerrymahoney said:

And has been also pointed at per the American Bar Association, appeals courts do not make a decision regading the verdict but concerning a procedural error buy the lower court:

 

An appeal is not a retrial or a new trial of the case. The appeals courts do not usually consider new witnesses or new evidence. Appeals in either civil or criminal cases are usually based on arguments that there were errors in the trial s procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law.

 

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/appeals

So what you cite as the apparent contradictions in the jury's decision probably won't play a role in an appeals court judge's decisions.

[jerrymahoney]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So what you cite as the apparent contradictions in the jury's decision probably won't play a role in an appeals court judge's decisions.

What will most likely be put before the appeals court will be  a procedural issue.

 

Team Trump has decided to appeal. While Tacopina is the attorney of record, specialized appellate attorneys have likely been given the go ahead to prepare a case.

Edited May 12, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[ThailandRyan]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

One of the things that puzzled me throughout the topics about the trial, was how some members were insisting that the case against Trump wasn't going well. Most of the commentators I read, left, right and center, were claiming it was going very badly for Trump.

Anyway, here's a link to an article that explains not only why it went badly for Trump, but why future trials will do so as well.

Trump’s Biggest Blunder in the E. Jean Carroll Trial Will Probably Doom Him in Court Again and Again

The former president shot himself in the foot. He’s got more rounds in the chamber.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/trump-verdict-carroll-trial-takeaways-georgia-doj-ny.html

Jefferson Davis comes to mind when we discuss Trump. A man who believes everything he says is the truth. His own worst enemy.

[Yellowtail]

I think all they really need to do for an appeal is show that the judge or one or more of the jurors was biased going in. 

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I think all they really need to do for an appeal is show that the judge or one or more of the jurors was biased going in. 

I suggest you look through the thread. Its nothing to do with that. At least one of the jurors in his disclosures when chosen, admitted he listens to Tim Pool, a far-right, pro-Trump commentator who has aligned himself with figures like Steve Bannon.

 

He was still allowed to be a juror.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Bkk Brian

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I think all they really need to do for an appeal is show that the judge or one or more of the jurors was biased going in. 

The appeal based on the alleged prejudice of a  juror is an obvious non-starter, since both sides during war dear get to eliminate potential jurors.

As for alleging prejudice on the part of the judge, you might try changing your information diet.