A federal appeals court has upheld the multimillion-dollar damages awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll in her defamation case against Donald Trump. The decision affirms that Trump did not meet the burden of demonstrating errors in the trial court’s rulings or proving that any alleged errors affected his substantial rights enough to warrant a new trial.
The case stems from a civil jury’s findings in May 2023, which determined that Trump was liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the 1990s and later defaming her when denying the allegations while serving as president. The jury concluded that Trump assaulted Carroll in a department store dressing room and subsequently defamed her by denying the incident and claiming he did not know her. Trump appealed the $5 million damages award, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence.
Key evidence included testimony from two women, Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, who alleged Trump had sexually assaulted them in unrelated incidents. Leeds described an assault on an airplane in the 1970s, while Stoynoff recounted an assault in 2005 at Mar-a-Lago. Trump also objected to the admission of the “Access Hollywood” tape, where he is heard making lewd comments about women. The appellate judges found that this evidence was appropriately admitted, as it demonstrated a pattern of behavior consistent with Carroll’s allegations.
The appellate court noted that the testimony of the two women and the “Access Hollywood” tape collectively established a recurring pattern of nonconsensual advances by Trump. The judges acknowledged that the tape corroborated Carroll’s claims and provided insight into Trump’s alleged modus operandi. They concluded that the evidence was admissible because it showed a consistent pattern of conduct, rather than merely indicating a propensity for such behavior.
Trump also argued that jurors should have been allowed to hear evidence about the funding of Carroll’s legal fees, which he claimed was provided by a political opponent. However, the court found no abuse of discretion in excluding this evidence, noting that it had limited probative value and posed a risk of unfair prejudice. The court emphasized that Carroll was not personally involved in securing the funding and that her case was initially taken on a contingency fee basis.
Another point of contention was Carroll’s decision not to report the alleged assault to the police. Trump argued that this decision undermined her credibility, but the court found that the trial judge had allowed extensive questioning on this topic. The court ruled that additional questioning would have been cumulative and within the trial court’s discretion to exclude.
The appellate court ultimately rejected all of Trump’s arguments, upholding the jury’s verdict and the damages award. Carroll and her legal team expressed satisfaction with the ruling, which they viewed as a validation of the trial court’s careful handling of the case.
