I have a different speculation based on what I think might happen if a few people who think somewhat as I do were on the jury.
We would be uncomfortable with ruling that what’s obviously a criminal offense occurred on the basis that he probably did it. No one, during deliberations, would question the judge’s instructions about this being a civil case without the no-reasonable-doubt requirement. But I think that a fair number of jurors do not want to say someone did something horrendous when we are only 80 or 90 percent sure.
I can see being certain Carroll didn’t make up a story that DJT assaulted her. But without any physical evidence that the terrifying assault got to the point Carroll remembers in nightmares, we might be reluctant to say there was proof of rape.
I know one objection to the above – sworn testimony from the friend, about a telephone call 23 years prior, saying it occurred minutes after the rape. How much certainty we have, that the call occurred the same day, may have been discussed in the jury room.
It’s arguably a subtle distinction, but the word “issues” would generally be interpreted as being a negative – a problem – from the speaker’s point of view, as in “I have issues with the quality of your work”. If Tacopina feels that an appeal is justified, I would think that “grounds for” expresses it more clearly than “issues for/with”.
I don’t think that was supposed to demonstrate his remarkable memory, I think it was supposed to demonstrate his remarkable brain power that clearly rises to the level of genius, according to his own assessment.
I think it’s simpler than that. By her own testimony, she was unsure whether Trump penetrated her with his penis, which is what was necessary for the act legally defined as “rape”, under the laws in place at the time. Even with a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, it’s tough to find something that even the victim herself was unsure of.
Though one would hope that the law at least treated other forms of nonconsensual sexual contact at a similar level of gravity, even if it used other words for those other acts.
The basis of the appeal, according to someone on television, are factors like the judge approving the watching of the pussy tape by the jury, which they considered inherently prejudicial. The judge also made a number of other decisions favorable to Carrol. You can be sure that Trump’s lawyers will compile all them into a list so long that it will stun and awe the MAGA crowd and make them doubt the entire structure of American jurisprudence.
Think how much that must piss Trump off. Ms. Carrol testified, and the jury believed, that she was unable to discern a difference between his finger and his penis.
Bringing up previous behavior is always controversial. Sometimes it provides a pattern of behavior and sometimes it inflames the jury. (Sometimes both.) Both sides probably knew at the moment the judge allowed it that it would be a basis for appeal if Trump lost.
I understand that there is a rule of Federal evidence that allows proof of prior bad acts/disposition in cases of sexual assaults, different from the normal rule.
I was being facetious. Your Honor… This blood soaked gun with my clients fingerprints is “Causing or tending to cause harm, especially to my legal case.”
This trial was in Federal Court, applying New York state law.
So appeals go to the Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
I believe he would have a right of appeal to a three judge panel, with a further appeal by way of leave to the Circuit en banc. Following that, technically there could be a cert app to the Supreme Court, but they have to dredge up some sort of federal issue; maybe that special federal rule of evidence for sexual assault trials?
As I understand it, an appeal can’t be made on the basis that the verdict was unfavorable, the defendant needs to come up with some irregularity in the trial that prevented them from having an opportunity for a fair verdict. Is this correct?
I’m not sure if that’s Trump’s plan here. It could be that he’s just trying to rile up his base and get them to donate more money. But that always seems to be his plan.
I understand your point but I truly think the fragile ego of DJT can’t abide that a jury found he is a disgusting sexual predator. Even his dimwitted brain understands the hit his self-imagined reputation will take.
But absolutely no doubt he will use this to keep the simoleons rolling in from the rubes.
Anybody else curious what donald will be asked at his upcoming town hall?
Meanwhile…this is actually the second defamation case that Carroll brought (since donald repeated his claims that he never met her and she wasn’t his type) - the first was stalled since he initially said the defamatory stuff while he was president. There was a big kerfuffle over whether his words would be actionable since he said them as President.
The appellate court has recently ruled:
The fact finder is the jury. This is their way of sending it back to the trial court and letting a jury decide the issue at trial.
And for clarification purposes
Meaning what we just saw was a verdict in Carroll II
Oh, and who is the judge for Carol I? Why, it’s U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, the same judge who just oversaw this verdict.
I knew he was doing a CNN thing. But I didn’t realize it was a town hall. Is he actually going to take questions from citizens? That might be worth a look.