Though it’s outside @lawfare’s bailiwick, readers have expressed interest in the E. Jean Carroll v Trump cases. The appeal of the verdict in the 1st case to go to trial, known as Carroll II (because it was filed 2d), will be heard Friday. Here’s an overview ...
/1
/1
https://twitter.com/rparloff/status/1830971687610769592
Fri.’s appeal concerns the May 2023 $5M verdict for sexual abuse & defamation. (Trump’s opening brief in the other case, Carroll I, is due 9/13. That’s the Jan. 2024 $83.3M verdict, for defamations in 2019 & 2023—the last one triggered by the Carroll II verdict.) ...
/2
/2
One key issue at Friday’s argument will be whether USDJ Lewis Kaplan abused his discretion in letting the jury hear testimony from Natasha Stoynoff (an former People reporter) & Jessica Leeds (airplane passenger) about similar alleged Trump assaults. ...
/3
/3
Trump says their claims, which he denies, were unduly prejudicial & too stale (Leeds in late ‘70s & Stoynoff in 2005). Carroll says they were proper under Fed. Rule of Evidence 415 (sexual assault), as defined in sections 413d1, 2, and 5. ...
/4
/4
... & also under FRE 404(b) (other bad acts offered for a permissible purpose). The purpose here was to show modus operandi: “a pattern of lunging at a woman in a semi-public place, pressing his body against her, kissing her, ...
/5
/5
... and sexually touching her without consent, and later categorically denying the allegations and declaring that the accuser was too unattractive for him to have assaulted her.” ...
/6
/6
... Trump also challenges Judge Kaplan’s admission of the Access Hollywood (“grab them by the p----”) tape. Carroll says it’s admissible as “sexual assault” under FRE 413d2 and 5; under FRE 404b as “modus operandi”; & maybe as a “confession.” ...
/7
/7
... Some of Trump’s remaining arguments relate to his claim that Carroll’s suits are “politically motivated.” On cross, he’d wanted to explore further than he was allowed the fact that @gtconway3d suggested she sue & referred her to atty @kaplanrobbie ...
/8
/8
@gtconway3d @kaplanrobbie ... In the same vein, Trump wanted to tell the jury that, for a period, Carroll’s attys received third-party litigation funding from a nonprofit funded by @reidhoffman, a Dem Party supporter. District courts often exclude such evidence, Carroll contends. ...
/9
/9
@gtconway3d @kaplanrobbie @reidhoffman ... Trump’s attys on appeal—who were *not* his trial attys—are Todd Blanche & Emil Bove (lead attys in his NY & FL crim cases & also active in DC) with argument by John Sauer, who argued Trump’s immunity appeal before SCOTUS.
@KaplanRobbie will argue for Carroll.
/10-end
@KaplanRobbie will argue for Carroll.
/10-end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
