In a significant legal development, a federal jury has ruled that former President Donald Trump must pay $83.3 million in damages to E. Jean Carroll. Carroll, an 80-year-old journalist, filed a defamation lawsuit against Trump in November 2019, accusing him of damaging her reputation by denying allegations that he raped her nearly three decades ago.

 

The lawsuit stemmed from Trump's denials, made five months earlier, in which he dismissed Carroll's claims that he raped her in the mid-1990s in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan. Trump, 77, asserted that he had never heard of Carroll and accused her of fabricating the story to boost sales of her memoir. His legal team argued that Carroll sought attention and fame by speaking out against Trump.

 

This verdict follows a previous ruling in May, where another jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll $5 million over a similar denial in October 2022. The jury found that Trump's actions constituted defamation and sexual abuse against Carroll. Trump is currently appealing that decision.

 

In the recent trial, Carroll sought damages exceeding $10 million, contending that Trump had severely damaged her reputation as a respected journalist known for her truthful reporting. She also sought punitive damages, aiming to prevent Trump from repeating his denials.

 

The outcome of this case adds another layer to the legal challenges faced by Donald Trump, marking a significant ruling in favor of E. Jean Carroll and highlighting the broader implications of defamation claims against public figures.

 

27.01.24

Source

 

Wow . Do you expect he will continue his tune.  I think 83 million would make me <deleted>.

The punitive amount, lawyer Roberta Kaplan said, should be enough to "make him stop" defaming her client.

REDUX

 

Trump claimed — and still does — Carroll was lying and made up the accusation to sell her book.

 

But U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, an appointee of former President Clinton who oversaw the trial, already ruled Trump defamed Carroll. The jury merely considered the issue of damages.

 

Within minutes, Trump vowed to appeal the verdict, as he did with the trial last year.

“Absolutely ridiculous! I fully disagree with both verdicts,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. 

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4431528-donald-trump-e-jean-carroll-defamation-trial-verdict/

 

He can post a bond if he can get it.

 

But there may be some complications as the verdict today is predicated on the liability decision last year that is already under appeal.

Poor trumpy 😂 he deserves to finally face consequences after all the people he’s hurt with his big mouth……there are many.its a good day for the justice system and America it’s also another nail in trump’s coffin all these things are adding up the worm is turning!

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

He can post a bond if he can get it.

He can’t appeal unless he can post a bond.

 

And he’s staring down the barrel of a possible $370million penalty due next week.

My coffee tastes unusually good this morning.

Trump filed a motion last year in the case decided today to pause the trial until the appeal was decided on last years defamation and sexual assault verdict.

 

Motion denied.

 

So if -- and I mean IF -- Trump does well on the case currently on appeal, both verdicts could be tossed.

If ever proof was needed that the US "justice system" is a very bad joke, this is it.

If it was anyone but Trump would the penalty be as large?

On 1/27/2024 at 5:51 AM, earlinclaifornia said:

Wow . Do you expect he will continue his tune.  I think 83 million would make me <deleted>.

The punitive amount, lawyer Roberta Kaplan said, should be enough to "make him stop" defaming her client.

 

Yep, all he could say was that he disagreed and would appeal the verdict. The damages verdict that is. The risk is that he will again defame Carroll in the appeal and damages will become eye watering.

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

If ever proof was needed that the US "justice system" is a very bad joke, this is it.

If it was anyone but Trump would the penalty be as large?

 

I must like bad jokes. I'm laughing my tits off today.

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

My coffee tastes unusually good this morning.

 

I'm about to find out - going for a free DEI Starbucks coffee.

Trump’s attorney, who I suspect is his latest grip, concocted an absolutely shameful closing argument that was nothing less than pure victim blaming.

 

Arguing that Trump’s victim brought the abuse and defamation upon herself by failing to stop complaining about the abuse and defamation.

A clear confirmation that the abuse and defamation were intended to silence Trump’s victim and would continue until Trump’s victim was silent. 
 

The judge followed that twisted logic by pointing out it an argument with zero legal backing and Trump’s victim has a constitutional right to speak.

 

Truthful speech is protected under the 1st Amendment , lies are not. 

 

8 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Trump filed a motion last year in the case decided today to pause the trial until the appeal was decided on last years defamation and sexual assault verdict.

 

Motion denied.

 

So if -- and I mean IF -- Trump does well on the case currently on appeal, both verdicts could be tossed.

Hope springs eternal.

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hope springs eternal.

No problem. You can have your cahoots over today's verdict. I'm just trying to explain how the US justice system works -- and the motion not to delay the trial until the appeal already underway is decided may be sufficient grounds for appeal this case right there.

Just now, jerrymahoney said:

No problem. You can have your cahoots over today's verdict. I'm just trying to explain how the US justice system works -- and the motion not to delay the trial until the appeal already underway is decided may be sufficient grounds for appeal this case right there.

 

Had he shut up it might have been different. There was a compelling legal need to make him shut up. He did not have a 1st amendment right to defame his victim as he claimed.

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Had he shut up it might have been different. There was a compelling legal need to make him shut up. He did not have a 1st amendment right to defame his victim as he claimed.

I'm no Trump apologist. He probably should have shut up. But he didn't. As far as next stages of the litigation, that really doesn't matter.

 

Again, if he succeeds in the current appeal, then the judgments in both of Judge Kaplan's trials could be tossed.

Edited January 27, 20242 yr by jerrymahoney

7 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

No problem. You can have your cahoots over today's verdict. I'm just trying to explain how the US justice system works -- and the motion not to delay the trial until the appeal already underway is decided may be sufficient grounds for appeal this case right there.

So since you are giving tutorials on the law, answer me this:

 

1. During appeal does the ruling that is appealed still stand?

 

She's 80 years old now, doubt she will live to see a penny from Trump ,and

it's his own fault the the amount was so high , clips shown in court of him

bragging how much money he is worth ,he won't be able to stop defaming

the woman ,because he cannot keep his gob shut....

 

We have had some bad politicians in the UK , but he takes top prize....

 

 

regards worgeordie

Oh dear how sad!

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If ever proof was needed that the US "justice system" is a very bad joke, this is it.

If it was anyone but Trump would the penalty be as large?

 

Did you hear that?  That was the sound of Trump support going up yet again.  Because the American voters recognize this for what it is.  Except, of course, those with TDS.

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Did you hear that?  That was the sound of Trump support going up yet again.  Because the American voters recognize this for what it is.  Except, of course, those with TDS.

Just keep sending your $

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So since you are giving tutorials on the law, answer me this:

 

1. During appeal does the ruling that is appealed still stand?

 

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).

 

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

 

But as in this case and the prior case, if the appeal is accepted by the court, the damage award goes into escrow account of the court either in cash or via a bond.

Edited January 27, 20242 yr by jerrymahoney

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Just keep sending your $

 

It is going to be so fun when he wins.

 

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

It is going to be so fun when he wins.

 

 

I know some that will cry themselves to sleep

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

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).

 

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

 

But as in this case and the prior case, if the appeal is accepted by the court, the damage award goes into escrow account of the court either in cash or via a bond.

I understand all that, but it wasn’t my question.

 

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So since you are giving tutorials on the law, answer me this:

 

1. During appeal does the ruling that is appealed still stand?

 

 

1 minute ago, BenStark said:

I know some that will cry themselves to sleep

 

The saving grace for them is that they already left the USA, so they won't have to pack.

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I understand all that, but it wasn’t my question.

 

 

Sure. In a civil trial, it stands until there is a reversal if any. But the damage award goes into escrow until the appeal is resolved.

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I understand all that, but it wasn’t my question.

 

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So since you are giving tutorials on the law, answer me this:

 

1. During appeal does the ruling that is appealed still stand?

 

Is your Google not working, or do you have other intentions with your bait?

 

https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/preparing-court-yourself/after-decision-issued/file-appeal/process-filing-appeal/what-motion

What is a motion to stay? How does it affect the order I am appealing?

When you file to appeal a judge’s order, the act of filing the appeal does not stop the court order that you are appealing from going into effect. The only way that the order would not go into effect immediately is to file a post-trial motion called a Motion to Stay and for the judge to grant a “stay,” which prevents the original order from taking effect while the appeal is going on.

46 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Yep, all he could say was that he disagreed and would appeal the verdict. The damages verdict that is. The risk is that he will again defame Carroll in the appeal and damages will become eye watering.

I think there are clear grounds for appeal.

 

Is it not the case that one is entitled to be judged by a jury OF YOUR PEERS.

 

There was not one loudmouthed orange dyed self proclaimed billionaire on that jury panel, not one!

Edited January 27, 20242 yr by herfiehandbag

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Sure. In a civil trial, it stands until there is a reversal if any. But the damage award goes into escrow until the appeal is resolved.

OK so waiting for the first appeal ruling is not grounds to appeal the second.