Court denies Trump’s appeal on Carroll’s $5M judgment

A federal appeals court has dismissed an appeal from President Donald Trump regarding a $5 million judgment against him for sexual abuse and defamation involving E. Jean Carroll. This decision follows a ruling from the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in December, which upheld the jury’s findings that Trump was liable for battery due to Carroll’s sexual assault claims. Trump’s legal team sought a review from the full appeals court but was denied. Should he choose to pursue further, the next recourse available to him is the Supreme Court.

E. Jean Carroll, a former magazine columnist, accused Trump of raping her in a New York department store during the 1990s and subsequently defaming her by questioning her credibility. The jury determined that while Carroll’s rape claim was not substantiated, Trump’s actions amounted to sexual abuse, leading to a liability for civil battery. Consequently, Trump was ordered to pay approximately $2 million for the battery claim and nearly $3 million for defamation.

In response to the ruling, Trump has consistently denied all allegations and characterized the civil trial verdict as unjust. His legal spokesperson framed the judgment as part of a political agenda against him, asserting that the American public supports Trump and seeks an end to what they term “witch hunts” related to the case.

Carroll and her attorney expressed satisfaction with the court’s dismissal of Trump’s appeal, emphasizing that despite his ongoing legal maneuvers, he remains accountable for both sexual assault and defamation, as verified by two juries. They view the ruling as a reaffirmation of justice and accountability in the face of Trump’s legal challenges.

However, not all judges agreed with the ruling. Two judges dissented, arguing that the inclusion of the Access Hollywood tape and other evidence from Trump’s past could have unreasonably influenced the jury’s verdict. They posited that the evidence presented might have skewed the proceedings, leading to a decision that was more about character judgment than substantiated facts.

Source: CNN

business