Trump on trial: What to watch for in the second E. Jean Carroll defamation case

[earlinclaifornia]

24 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

It was on the court docket post jury decision. And her suggestion I would say is more that there was always a clinging sales associate present than in actual security.

 

And while I might offer my opinion as to why, I think maybe sometime during an appeal this may be at issue civil trial or not:

 

Her: You raped me.

Him: When did I rape you?

Her: I don't know.

 

 

Confused you want to appeal when that took place already?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-files-notice-appeal-lawsuit-brought-by-e-jean-carroll-2023-05-11/

Just to remind you his guilt was settled. This is a second penalty phase for this continuation of insults.

 

[EVENKEEL]

12 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yes, I understand what the trial is about.

But I still think it is crazy that a in a case like that, without any evidence that he even met that woman in that store, he has to pay when he basically tells everybody he didn't do it.

As far as I know even convicted murderer in jail are allowed to say they are innocent, they didn't do it.

But it seems if Trump tells people he didn't do it (ok, he does it the Trump way), then he has to pay. I think that is strange.

And this is why I asked if, according the members' knowledge, this is only something which can happen like that in the USA or also in other countries.

Of course it's crazy to have this in our court system. It's absurd, just an old lady with a fanciful memory.

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, Georgealbert said:

Yes, and lets not forget this quote below.

 

Some other posters would still come along a defend their hero, remember he recently claimed “God made Trump to be America’s caretaker”

 

 

The Lincoln Project took the silly talibangical "And god sent trump" video, which trump re-tweeted, and did a much better and truer version:

 

 

Edited January 18 by Walker88

[stevenl]

53 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Of course it's crazy to have this in our court system. It's absurd, just an old lady with a fanciful memory.

This is about defamation, nothing to do with her memory.

He should have kept his mouth shut, appealed and all would be over.

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

This is about defamation, nothing to do with her memory.

He should have kept his mouth shut, appealed and all would be over.

trump's defence should be "medical condition"

He should claim, and I am sure there is not a person who would not agree with him, that he suffers from diarrhea of the mouth cause from a natural lobotoby that has disrupted the connection  of his brain to his mouth. 

[jerrymahoney]

1 hour ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Just to remind you his guilt was settled.

His guilt, or more accurately liability, was settled in Judge Kaplan's Federal District Court. Not yet in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

 

Personally, as someone who lived in NY City in the mid-1970's when Donald Trump from Queens was becoming, The Donald' I would go with the Al Pacino quote from And Justice For All:

 

 That man, there, that man is a slime!

 

But, to me, denying someone the right to an alibi in a procedure like this, when there is an one-off incident involved, whether criminal or civil, should not stand.

Edited January 18 by jerrymahoney

[EVENKEEL]

28 minutes ago, stevenl said:

This is about defamation, nothing to do with her memory.

He should have kept his mouth shut, appealed and all would be over.

You're saying this mess didn't start with an old lady crying rape from 30 yrs ago. 

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

You're saying this mess didn't start with an old lady crying rape from 30 yrs ago. 

It started with Trump’s abusive actions and accelerated when he ran his mouth.

 

A matter already settled by the court.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

31 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

His guilt, or more accurately liability, was settled in Judge Kaplan's Federal District Court. Not yet in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

 

Personally, as someone who lived in NY City in the mid-1970's when Donald Trump from Queens was becoming, The Donald' I would go with the Al Pacino quote from And Justice For All:

 

 That man, there, that man is a slime!

 

But, to me, denying someone the right to an alibi in a procedure like this, when there is a one-off incident involved, whether criminal or civil, should not stand.

What alibi?

 

This second case is for Trump’s continued defamation of Carroll, which he did in front of camera hours after losing the first trial.

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What alibi?

 

This second case is for Trump’s continued defamation of Carroll, which he did in front of camera hours after losing the first trial.

 

 

The second case is  actually the first case.

 

You are right . No Alibi. How can there be an alibi when Trump doesn't know on which day the alleged assault occurred?

[retarius]

Just goes to show there is no justice to be had in America with Biden's DOJ manipulating cases for political reasons. I would have liked to see some actual evidence for the conviction. It seems highly unlikely that he raped her in a changing room on the off-chance in a department store. Besides that I saw Marla Maples in person and I don't think Trump would have anything to do with the likes of E Jean. 

[Georgealbert]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-carroll-defamation-lawsuit-70d4477120399373934253c7e450643e

[Georgealbert]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

His guilt, or more accurately liability, was settled in Judge Kaplan's Federal District Court. Not yet in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

 

Personally, as someone who lived in NY City in the mid-1970's when Donald Trump from Queens was becoming, The Donald' I would go with the Al Pacino quote from And Justice For All:

 

 That man, there, that man is a slime!

 

But, to me, denying someone the right to an alibi in a procedure like this, when there is an one-off incident involved, whether criminal or civil, should not stand.

He was not denied his right to an alibi, he did not appear in his own defence at the original trial, his and his lawyers choice.

 

He can try to give his alibi at any appeal, but this trial is about the amount of damages, it is not a retrial and is not the place to submit new evidence, as stated by the judge.

 

I like you posts, you show details and facts that not easily found, and are interesting reading, but I find it hard to believe you do not support Trump, as almost everything you post is pro Trump.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

You're saying this mess didn't start with an old lady crying rape from 30 yrs ago. 

Correct, this case started with Trump not keeping his mouth shut.

[EVENKEEL]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Correct, this case started with Trump not keeping his mouth shut.

I would imagine if this old lady didn't originally charge trump with rape, none of this would be happening. 

[earlinclaifornia]

18 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

He was not denied his right to an alibi, he did not appear in his own defence at the original trial, his and his lawyers choice.

 

He can try to give his alibi at any appeal, but this trial is about the amount of damages, it is not a retrial and is not the place to submit new evidence, as stated by the judge.

 

I like you posts, you show details and facts that not easily found, and are interesting reading, but I find it hard to believe you do not support Trump, as almost everything you post is pro Trump.

Same here and sometimes wonder why I get the sense of a bias post with good searching results but questionable pro MAGA

[jerrymahoney]

33 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

He was not denied his right to an alibi, he did not in his own defence at the original trial, his and his lawyers choice.

He was denied the right to an alibi because there was no claim by the Plaintiff as to the actual date when the alleged assault ever took place.

 

The current trial as defamation-only was originally filed in 2020. The trial where Trump was found liable for assault  was filed in 2022 when NY state gave a temporary reprieve on civil sexual assault statute of limitations. That is the case that is now under appeal.

 

And when the current 2020 so-called Carroll 1 case is resolved, that too will likely be appealed after posted a bond or cash.

 

Edited January 18 by jerrymahoney

[jerrymahoney]

15 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Same here and sometimes wonder why I get the sense of a bias post with good searching results but questionable pro MAGA

I just look at the case docket in both the civil and criminal trials. And I voted against Trump twice already.

[Georgealbert]

17 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

He was denied the right to an alibi because there was no claim by the Plaintiff as to the actual date when the alleged assault ever took place.

 

The current trial as defamation-only was originally filed in 2020. The trial where Trump was found liable for assault  was filed in 2022 when NY state gave a temporary reprieve on civil sexual assault statute of limitations. That is the case that is now under appeal.

 

And when the current 2020 so-called Carroll 1 case is resolved, that too will likely be appealed after posted a bond or cash.

 

Agree with your comments about the trials. This outcome will be appealed after the level of damages have been set.

 

Trump will have chance to outline his defence at both appeals, unless he decides that using social media is better for his cult, and continues to believe he is above the law.

 

The issue of his alibi, our opinions are going to differ.

[Georgealbert]

14 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I just look at the case docket in both the civil and criminal trials. And I voted against Trump twice already.

Please continue to post the case dockets, I find their give a rare insight into the cases, that are not easy to find.

[jerrymahoney]

11 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

The issue of his alibi, our opinions are going to differ.

I don't see on what there is to differ: No date. No alibi possible.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

I would imagine if this old lady didn't originally charge trump with rape, none of this would be happening. 

Got a problem with women standing up for themselves?

 

It seems you do.

 

How about ‘woman gets the better of Trump, again’.

 

 

 

Edited January 18 by Chomper Higgot

[jerrymahoney]

This would be more typical of a complaint under the NY State Adult Survivors Act:

 

3. On or about August 26, 2015, Defendant ERIC MARLON BISHOP, a/k/a JAMIE FOXX was at a restaurant and rooftop lounge and bar located at 21 9th Avenue, New York,  New York in the City, County and State of New York.

 

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/not_assigned_jane_doe_v_jane_doe_summons___complaint_1.pdf

 

As opposed Ms. Carroll's:

 

NEW YORK, Nov 17 (2022)(Reuters) - The writer accusing Donald Trump of raping her 27 years ago

 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-defamed-me-again-rape-accuser-carroll-says-forthcoming-lawsuit-2022-11-17/

 

 

 

Edited January 18 by jerrymahoney

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

This would be more typical of a complaint under the NY State Adult Survivors Act:

 

3. On or about August 26, 2015, Defendant ERIC MARLON BISHOP, a/k/a JAMIE FOXX was at a restaurant and rooftop lounge and bar located at 21 9th Avenue, New York,  New York in the City, County and State of New York.

 

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/not_assigned_jane_doe_v_jane_doe_summons___complaint_1.pdf

 

As opposed Ms. Carroll's:

 

NEW YORK, Nov 17 (2022)(Reuters) - The writer accusing Donald Trump of raping her 27 years ago

 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-defamed-me-again-rape-accuser-carroll-says-forthcoming-lawsuit-2022-11-17/

 

 

 

And the court believed her.

 

 

[placeholder]

40 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And the court believed her.

 

 

As JerryMahoney apparently  believes, Verdict, shmerdict

[jerrymahoney]

An appeal will deal with Constitutional rights issues -- not the verdict.

Edited January 18 by jerrymahoney

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

An appeal will deal with Constitutional rights issues -- not the verdict.

Assuming there are any infringements.

 

[jerrymahoney]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Assuming there are any infringements.

 

That's what will be the case presented.

 

Most of the NY State sexual cases involve assault that occurred over a period of time usually involving  some form of employment and most, if not all, the other one-off cases have a specific on-or-about date as with the Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx case above.

Edited January 18 by jerrymahoney

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

That's what will be the case presented.

 

Most of the NY State sexual cases involve assault that occurred over a period of time usually involving  some form of employment and most, if not all, the other one-off cases have a specific on-or-about date as with the Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx case above.

Each case stands on its own merits, I doubt Jamie Fox, or indeed his Oscar will get a mention before the Appellate Court.

 

Although with the Trump lawyers that stick around long enough to present before the court who knows what kind of whack job nonsense might come up with.

 

Meanwhile, the court ruling stands and Trump continues to run his mouth present more live evidence against him self. 

[jerrymahoney]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Each case stands on its own merits, I doubt Jamie Fox, or indeed his Oscar will get a mention before the Appellate Court.

 

Although with the Trump lawyers that stick around long enough to present before the court who knows what kind of whack job nonsense might come up with.

 

Meanwhile, the court ruling stands and Trump continues to run his mouth present more live evidence against him self. 

An appeal is not a trial. Jamie Foxx aside, there is an incongruity in that few if any one-off cases under the NY State law do not give a date so that the defendant is at least allowed the possibility of entering an alibi.

 

No date; no alibi. 

 

< She told the jury that she first met Trump in 1987 -- but she struggled to pinpoint the date that she alleges he attacked her, which she estimated was sometime around 1996.

 

< "And why is there no date to an event as significant as this in someone's life?" defense attorney Joe Tacopina countered. "It's not a coincidence. With no date, no month, no year, you can't present an alibi." 

 

https://abc7chicago.com/e-jean-carroll-case-trump-closing-arguments-jury-rape-trial-defamation/13226735/

 

Does Trump have a right to be allowed to offer an alibi? In a criminal case, absolutely. In a civil case, that will be decided among other constitutional issues. But again, in most if not all one off cases, a date on-or-about was provided