E. Jean Carroll, a former writer for Elle magazine, has recently expressed her belief that former President Donald Trump's presence on the stand might have had the power to influence the jury's decision in her high-profile lawsuit. Carroll accused Trump of committing an act of sexual assault against her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in Manhattan during the 1990s, and later of defaming her by denying the allegations.
A jury in May 2023 found Trump liable for battery and defamation but acquitted him of the rape charge. Carroll, during a joint Substack livestream with former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, discussed her perspective on the trial's outcome, as reported by the Daily Caller on Friday. She conjectured that Trump's decision not to testify, allegedly influenced by his attorney Joe Tacopina, was strategic, given his strong support base's potential impact on the jury's verdict.
According to Carroll, had Trump taken the stand, his cross-examination by lawyer Robbie Kaplan could have lasted approximately seven hours, which she believed would have been detrimental to his defense. Nonetheless, the jury, drawn not from Manhattan but from upstate New York, was seen by Carroll as potentially favoring Trump. She highlighted Orange County, where Trump had won by a notable margin over Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, as per Spectrum News 1, suggesting a demographic that might be partial to Trump.
Despite not testifying, Carroll remained concerned that Trump's influence could have led to a hung jury. She described the jury as "Trump-favoring," contrasting it with what she referred to as a "liberal, avocado-toast-eatin’ jury." The trial concluded with a $5 million award in damages to Carroll, which followed a separate $83.3 million defamation award from a January 2024 trial.
Carroll has voiced intentions to allocate the funds, which she has yet to receive, towards causes she believes would provoke Trump's disapproval. Trump, for his part, has publicly criticized the verdicts as "absolutely ridiculous" in a Truth Social post in January 2024.
In a related development, a federal appeals court recently upheld the $5 million judgment against Trump, rejecting his appeal. The decision emerged from a divided en banc panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which included all 11 judges. Trump had contended that the trial judge erred by permitting the jury to view the 2005 Access Hollywood tape and other evidence he deemed prejudicial.
Judges Steven Menashi and Michael Park, both Trump appointees, dissented, arguing against the inclusion of "propensity" evidence such as the Access Hollywood footage. Nevertheless, the court's ruling affirmed Carroll's victory, maintaining the jury award.
Carroll's latest comments introduce a new facet to the ongoing legal narrative and public discourse surrounding her case against Trump. Her musings on the possible influence of Trump's testimony add to the complexities of their contentious legal history.
