Federal Jury Orders Donald Trump to Pay $83.3 Million in Defamation Case

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I think the insurrection case is the most important. The 14th amendment case is just another Trump delaying tactic and prevents progress on the insurrection case.

Delays are evidence Trump himself knows he is guilty. A person who believes in his innocence wants any trial to be as speedy as possible.

Trump also knows if he does not make it to the 2024 polls, or fails to get re-elected, he is toast. I expect some really vicious attacks on Nikki Haley.

[Lacessit]

7 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

The Florida Judge is a Trump appointment; the DC Judge is an Obama appointment.

 

I have said many times: I don't care about the outcome of any of the Trump criminal cases as long as he is not again President

Correct, I was the wrong way around.

[Lacessit]

23 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

 

Beats me. 

Probably beats Trump lawyers too.

[jerrymahoney]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Probably beats Trump lawyers too.

US Supreme Court attorneys make about $1000 per hour and in every case there is a winner and loser.

 

And every lawyer know that, regardless of the results today, with another case with the same lawyer, the results may be the reverse.

 

So they are not smug.

[Lacessit]

Just now, jerrymahoney said:

US Supreme Court attorneys make about $1000 per hour and in every case there is a winner and loser.

 

And every lawyer know that, regardless of the results today, with another case with the same lawyer, the results may be the reverse.

 

So they are not smug.

I never said Trump's lawyers would not be laughing all the way to the bank, win or lose.

At least, the ones who demanded their money up front from him.

[jerrymahoney]

15 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Delays are evidence Trump himself knows he is guilty. A person who believes in his innocence wants any trial to be as speedy as possible.

The government has to  prove guilt in a criminal case; the defendant does not have to prove he is innocent. 

[Lacessit]

29 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

The government has to  prove guilt in a criminal case; the defendant does not have to prove he is innocent. 

True. I'd say the proof is pretty overwhelming, but that's just an opinion.

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

That is your opinion. The law community is very collegial -- big time trial adversaries during the week can play golf together on the weekends.

or have sex with each other, it seems.

[jerrymahoney]

10 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

or have sex with each other, it seems.

This topic is the NY case, not Georgia.

[Danderman123]

The correct term is:

 

"Trump is an adjudicated rapist".

[jerrymahoney]

13 hours ago, Lacessit said:

True. I'd say the proof is pretty overwhelming, but that's just an opinion.

The only evidence that matters is the evidence that is admitted at trial.

 

FEDERAL JURY
INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES

 

COURT’S PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION “B”
WHAT IS EVIDENCE

The evidence you are to consider in deciding the facts of the case are:
First, the sworn testimony of any witness; and
Second, the exhibits that are admitted in evidence; and
Third, any facts to which the parties agree.

 

https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/c469aec9-f838-4845-ac11-44df5700d995/JMS August 7 2023 Civ Jury Instrs.pdf

[LosLobo]

On 2/3/2024 at 12:31 PM, jerrymahoney said:

While that doesn't mention Joe Tacopina by name, about Trump's not appearing at the NY State victims trial, Tacopina said roughly:

 

What was I supposed to do -- ask him "Where  were you in late 1995 or early 1996?

What is the point you are trying to make here?

[Lacessit]

6 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

The only evidence that matters is the evidence that is admitted at trial.

 

FEDERAL JURY
INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES

 

COURT’S PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION “B”
WHAT IS EVIDENCE

The evidence you are to consider in deciding the facts of the case are:
First, the sworn testimony of any witness; and
Second, the exhibits that are admitted in evidence; and
Third, any facts to which the parties agree.

 

https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/c469aec9-f838-4845-ac11-44df5700d995/JMS August 7 2023 Civ Jury Instrs.pdf

Am I correct in assuming the same instructions apply in criminal trials?

 

Jack Smith seems to have plenty of exhibits to be admitted into evidence - documents at Mar-a-Lago, tape recordings, emails and posts by Trump himself.

I am just wondering what physical exhibits the defense lawyers will be entering into evidence, and what witnesses they can call to contradict the testimony of prosecution witnesses.

IMO  any sworn testimony from a defense witness would be flirting with perjury.

There may not be much agreement on facts, given Trump prefers alternative ones.

 

After Trump refused to provide a DNA sample for the Carroll trial, it was clear he did not want that to be admitted into evidence. With his perfect memory, he would know if he raped her.

Edited February 4 by Lacessit

[Danderman123]

Carroll attorneys can't stop talking about the “unbelievable” things Alina Habba said at trial

 

Recounting an instance where Habba raised her voice at the judge, Kaplan says, "The idea that any lawyer sitting in front of Judge Kaplan would say the kinds of things she said . . . I think my blood pressure [rose] . . . The very first day she said to him, 'I really don’t appreciate the way you’re talking to me.' To the judge! And not even that nice.

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Carroll attorneys can't stop talking about the “unbelievable” things Alina Habba said at trial

 

Recounting an instance where Habba raised her voice at the judge, Kaplan says, "The idea that any lawyer sitting in front of Judge Kaplan would say the kinds of things she said . . . I think my blood pressure [rose] . . . The very first day she said to him, 'I really don’t appreciate the way you’re talking to me.' To the judge! And not even that nice.

 

Grandstanding and dancing to Trump's whims.

[jerrymahoney]

16 hours ago, Lacessit said:

After Trump refused to provide a DNA sample for the Carroll trial, it was clear he did not want that to be admitted into evidence. With his perfect memory, he would know if he raped her.

UPDATED WED, FEB 15 202311:52 AM EST

 

< The judge noted that Carroll would not be entitled now to get a DNA sample from Trump, because the process of exchanging evidence, known as discovery, is completed.

 

< “Her counsel have had plenty of opportunities in both of the two related cases to move to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample,” Kaplan wrote. “Had they done so, they almost certainly would have gotten it. But Ms. Carroll’s counsel never moved to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample. They obviously decided to go to trial without it.”

 

The Carroll team had 3 years to 'compel' Trump to submit DNA but did not do so. So maybe they were the ones who didn't want the DNA because at best the results would be inconclusive. And it was the Carroll team who provided the motion that DNA not not to be discussed in any way at the trial. And was not.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/15/judge-rejects-trump-offer-of-dna-sample-in-carroll-rape-defamation-case.html

 

This is the kind of info the Carroll motion had omitted from the trial:

 

5.  The Donna Karan blazer dress she claims to have worn during the alleged incident was not even available at the time of her claims. Trump Attorney Boris Epshteyn told reporters, “She said, ‘This is the dress I wore in 1994.’ They went back, they checked. The dress wasn’t even made in 1994.”

 

https://twitter(dot)com/OwenGregorian/status/1751608969724850669

 

Edited February 4 by jerrymahoney

[LosLobo]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

UPDATED WED, FEB 15 202311:52 AM EST

 

< The judge noted that Carroll would not be entitled now to get a DNA sample from Trump, because the process of exchanging evidence, known as discovery, is completed.

 

< “Her counsel have had plenty of opportunities in both of the two related cases to move to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample,” Kaplan wrote. “Had they done so, they almost certainly would have gotten it. But Ms. Carroll’s counsel never moved to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample. They obviously decided to go to trial without it.”

 

The Carroll team had 3 years to 'compel' Trump to submit DNA but did not do so. So maybe they were the ones who didn't want the DNA because at best the results would be inconclusive. And it was the Carroll team who provided the motion that DNA not not to be discussed in any way at the trial. And was not.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/15/judge-rejects-trump-offer-of-dna-sample-in-carroll-rape-defamation-case.html

 

This is the kind of info the Carroll motion had omitted from the trial:

 

5.  The Donna Karan blazer dress she claims to have worn during the alleged incident was not even available at the time of her claims. Trump Attorney Boris Epshteyn told reporters, “She said, ‘This is the dress I wore in 1994.’ They went back, they checked. The dress wasn’t even made in 1994.”

 

https://twitter(dot)com/OwenGregorian/status/1751608969724850669

 

 I would like to offer a different perspective for your consideration:

1. DNA Evidence: It’s important to remember that Donald Trump had the opportunity to submit his DNA at any point during the litigation process. His decision to offer it late in the process could potentially delay the trial, which is his usual modus operandi. The judge said that the offer was a “quid pro quo” that had no justification and came too late in the litigation.
    

2. Strategic Decisions: E. Jean Carroll’s legal team’s decision not to compel a DNA sample from Trump was a strategic one. Drawing conclusions from this decision, as you have done, could lead to a logical fallacy. The absence of an action does not necessarily imply a particular motive or outcome.
    

3. Anecdotal Evidence: The comments made by a lawyer about the dress are anecdotal without concrete evidence. They are part of their advocacy for their clients and are not independently verified facts. Therefore, while they may provide context, they should not be taken as evidentiary.
   
   Judge rejects Donald Trump DNA offer in E. Jean Carroll Case
   
   As another anecdote, seems Boris Epshteyn the Trump lawyer who is the author of the Donna Karan blazer dress claim, has 'some skin in the game' just like his client.
   
   Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn arrested in 2021 after groping complaints at club, police records show | AP News

[jerrymahoney]

7 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

•  

• Strategic Decisions: E. Jean Carroll’s legal team’s decision not to compel a DNA sample from Trump was a strategic one. Drawing conclusions from this decision, as you have done, could lead to a logical fallacy. The absence of an action does not necessarily imply a particular motive or outcome.
   

In other words, you don't know.

[LosLobo]

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

In other words, you don't know.

Again, like in the post that you have not responded to as yet:

'What is the point you are trying to make here?'
 

I am only quoting from the source, shown in my post.

'Judge Kaplan added that both parties had the opportunity to make DNA analysis an issue in the upcoming April trial — and both, for their own 'strategic' reasons, opted against it'.

Judge rejects Donald Trump DNA offer in E. Jean Carroll Case

[jerrymahoney]

12 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Again, like in the post that you have not responded to as yet:

'What is the point you are trying to make here?'
 

I am only quoting from the source, shown in my post.

'Judge Kaplan added that both parties had the opportunity to make DNA analysis an issue in the upcoming April trial — and both, for their own 'strategic' reasons, opted against it'.

Judge rejects Donald Trump DNA offer in E. Jean Carroll Case

So we know from the AN Vox Populai why Trump would not want the DNA in the case. (because he's guilty)

 

What was Carroll's strategic reason?

 

And I'll respond to others post or queries when I feel like it or not.

 

 

Edited February 5 by jerrymahoney

[LosLobo]

22 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

So we know from the AN Vox Populai why Trump would not want the DNA in the case. (because he's guilty)

 

What was Carroll's strategic reason?

 

And I'll respond to others post or queries when I feel like it or not.

Perhaps an appropriate approach for me in AN Vox Populi lingua franca would be ‘quid pro quo’.

[jerrymahoney]

13 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Perhaps an appropriate approach for me in AN Vox Populi lingua franca would be ‘quid pro quo’.

The whole issue of DNA lab reports in or out will likely not be an issue of appeal.

 

The exclusion of Ms. Carroll's extra-judicial comments about DNA likely will.

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

UPDATED WED, FEB 15 202311:52 AM EST

 

< The judge noted that Carroll would not be entitled now to get a DNA sample from Trump, because the process of exchanging evidence, known as discovery, is completed.

 

< “Her counsel have had plenty of opportunities in both of the two related cases to move to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample,” Kaplan wrote. “Had they done so, they almost certainly would have gotten it. But Ms. Carroll’s counsel never moved to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample. They obviously decided to go to trial without it.”

 

The Carroll team had 3 years to 'compel' Trump to submit DNA but did not do so. So maybe they were the ones who didn't want the DNA because at best the results would be inconclusive. And it was the Carroll team who provided the motion that DNA not not to be discussed in any way at the trial. And was not.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/15/judge-rejects-trump-offer-of-dna-sample-in-carroll-rape-defamation-case.html

 

This is the kind of info the Carroll motion had omitted from the trial:

 

5.  The Donna Karan blazer dress she claims to have worn during the alleged incident was not even available at the time of her claims. Trump Attorney Boris Epshteyn told reporters, “She said, ‘This is the dress I wore in 1994.’ They went back, they checked. The dress wasn’t even made in 1994.”

 

https://twitter(dot)com/OwenGregorian/status/1751608969724850669

 

What part of my post did you not understand?

If I was Trump, and innocent of the allegations, I would be screaming to high heaven to get my DNA included.

[jerrymahoney]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

What part of my post did you not understand?

If I was Trump, and innocent of the allegations, I would be screaming to high heaven to get my DNA included.

How Your DNA—or Someone Else’s—Can Send You to Jail

 

Although DNA is individual to you—a “fingerprint” of your genetic code—DNA samples don’t always tell a complete story. The DNA samples used in criminal prosecutions are generally of low quality, making them particularly complicated to analyze. They are not very concentrated, not very complete, or are a mixture of multiple individuals’ DNA—and often, all of these conditions are true.

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/how-your-dna-or-someone-elses-can-send-you-jail

 

And from my post above:

 

< “Her counsel have had plenty of opportunities in both of the two related cases to move to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample,” (Judge) Kaplan wrote. “Had they done so, they almost certainly would have gotten it. But Ms. Carroll’s counsel never moved to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample. They obviously decided to go to trial without it.”

 

So why did Carroll's attorneys decide not to compel a DNA sample?

Edited February 5 by jerrymahoney

[jerrymahoney]

ADDENDUM to the above:

 

How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions
Forensic DNA evidence has been a game-changer for law enforcement, but research shows it can contribute to miscarriages of justice.

 

In criminal investigation, DNA evidence can be a game-changer. But DNA is just one piece of the puzzle, rarely giving a clear “he did it” answer. According to a consortium of forensic experts who released a report earlier this year, there are limits to what DNA can tell us about a crime. And what it can and can’t reliably prove in court needs to be much clearer.  ...

 

Telling a jury it is implausible that anyone besides the suspect would have the same DNA test results is seldom, if ever, justified,” the report states. ...

 

The lesson of all this research: DNA evidence is a powerful tool in criminal investigation and prosecution, but it must be used with care. It should never be oversold in court, and it should only ever be considered in light of other available evidence.

 

https://daily.jstor.org/forensic-dna-evidence-can-lead-wrongful-convictions/

 

And a note on Robbie Kaplan, Ms. Carroll's lead attorney:

 

Kaplan successfully argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of LGBT rights activist Edith Windsor, in United States v. Windsor, a landmark decision that invalidated a section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberta_Kaplan

 

 

 

Edited February 5 by jerrymahoney

[Lacessit]

4 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

How Your DNA—or Someone Else’s—Can Send You to Jail

 

Although DNA is individual to you—a “fingerprint” of your genetic code—DNA samples don’t always tell a complete story. The DNA samples used in criminal prosecutions are generally of low quality, making them particularly complicated to analyze. They are not very concentrated, not very complete, or are a mixture of multiple individuals’ DNA—and often, all of these conditions are true.

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/how-your-dna-or-someone-elses-can-send-you-jail

 

And from my post above:

 

< “Her counsel have had plenty of opportunities in both of the two related cases to move to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample,” (Judge) Kaplan wrote. “Had they done so, they almost certainly would have gotten it. But Ms. Carroll’s counsel never moved to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample. They obviously decided to go to trial without it.”

 

So why did Carroll's attorneys decide not to compel a DNA sample?

My guess would be the sample of bodily fluid (whatever it happened to be)

was too badly degraded by the passage of time to give a convincing result. The sample is about 28 years old, with probably no convincing chain of custody.

 

IMO it was a carefully considered decision by lawyers on both sides, after talking to forensic experts. If the plaintiff's lawyers could not get a match, due to the age of the sample, taking into account custody issues, it would have been a fairly substantial plank in Trump's defense. OTOH, if Trump provided a sample which matched, game over.

It's a two-edged sword, obviously both sides decided against gambling.

[jerrymahoney]

38 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

My guess would be the sample of bodily fluid (whatever it happened to be)

was too badly degraded by the passage of time to give a convincing result. The sample is about 28 years old, with probably no convincing chain of custody.

 

IMO it was a carefully considered decision by lawyers on both sides, after talking to forensic experts. If the plaintiff's lawyers could not get a match, due to the age of the sample, taking into account custody issues, it would have been a fairly substantial plank in Trump's defense. OTOH, if Trump provided a sample which matched, game over.

It's a two-edged sword, obviously both sides decided against gambling.

I see -- so you now  wouldn't be screaming to high heaven to get your DNA included if you were innocent but charged with a crime. And the sample was not sperm. But the trial is over.

 

What seems to be at issue in the appeal, in this area, is not the DNA per se but that the Judge allowed the motion by Carroll to exclude any mention of her extra-judicial comments on the DNA.

****************

Trump rape case: After years of back and forth over Trump's DNA, jurors won't even hear about it
Mar 28, 2023, 3:26 AM GMT+7

The judge presiding over E. Jean Carroll's rape and defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump has banned lawyers from even mentioning DNA evidence in front of the jury when the case goes to trial next month. 

 

US District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled Monday that both sides would be "precluded from any testimony, argument, commentary or reference concerning DNA evidence" during the trial, which is scheduled to begin April 25. 

 

While DNA evidence was thrown out of the case, Trump's lawyers continued to fight for the chance to question Carroll about her comments insinuating she had DNA evidence to prove her sexual-assault claim.

 

In 2021, Carroll tweeted about Trump's mounting legal issues, writing, "Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan District Attorney, has Trump's taxes. Fani Willis, the Georgia Prosecutor, has Trump's phone call. Mary Trump has her grandfather's will. And I have the dress. Trump is basically in deep <deleted>."

 

She also acknowledged in her deposition that she publicly claimed to have Trump's DNA.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-rape-case-lawyers-banned-from-speaking-about-dna-judge-rules-2023-3

Edited February 5 by jerrymahoney

[Lacessit]

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I see -- so you now  wouldn't be screaming to high heaven to get your DNA included if you were innocent but charged with a crime. And the sample was not sperm. But the trial is over.

 

What seems to be at issue in the appeal, in this area, is not the DNA per se but that the Judge allowed the motion by Carroll to exclude any mention of her extra-judicial comments on the DNA.

It doesn't matter what the sample is. Saliva, hairs, skin cells, whatever. The presence of Trump's DNA would prove he lied about never having met her.

 

Maybe I have more faith in science than you do. It's worth noting hundreds of convicted criminals have subsequently been exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence.

 

https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/

 

Now tell me, how many people have been WRONGFULLY convicted on the basis of DNA evidence?

[jerrymahoney]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Now tell me, how many people have been WRONGFULLY convicted on the basis of DNA evidence?

This ain't no <deleted> crossd-exam

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

This ain't no <deleted> crossd-exam

You don't like my questions? You're not the first.

The laugh emoticon was from me.