Civil Trial: Trump v E. Jean Carroll (Carroll wins, awarded $5 million, plus 83.3 million)

[hajario]

The questions will be heavily prescreened but I’m not sure what will force people to stay on script. My guess is that he’ll cancel.

[slicedalone]

Isn’t he risking legal actions, almost certain to result in more liability, by repeating his defamatory remarks about her, this morning (and presumably into the future)?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@BobLibDem

After the inevitable parade of appeals, how will the $5M be paid? Certainly the proven sexual abuser will never write a check with his tiny hands. Will a court have to go and take it from his assets or bank account or what? What are the odds that Carroll ever sees a nickel?

In a civil case, if the loser doesn’t pay up the winner can file for a lien on one or more of the loser’s assets. Further excruciatingly detailed information for New York here.

[Northern_Piper]

Found the answer, according to Investopedia: There can be a requirement for an appeal bond in Federal Court civil matters.

Appeal Bond: What it is, How it Works, Special Considerations

Understanding an Appeal Bond

After a civil court ruling, the losing party can appeal by bringing the court case to the higher court. The higher court will only review issues objected to in the lower court during the initial trial, not new evidence. If the lower court ordered the defendant to pay a judgment, they usually wouldn’t have to come up with the money until the appeals process has been exhausted.

An appeal, however, could take a long period of time to be ruled upon; in some cases, an appeal could take years. During this time, the losing defendant will have to spend out-of-pocket costs to cover their legal fees and any other costs related to the case. Since there is a possibility that the defendant may go bankrupt by the time the case is ruled on, they are required to post a surety bond before the commencement of the appeals process.

The surety bond, known as an appeal bond, is required by the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7. It must be paid to the court or a third party to demonstrate good faith and intent to commit to the final ruling if the appellant loses.1

The appeal bond also serves as a safety net bond, which helps protect the court from frivolous appeals or delaying tactics to avoid payment as these dishonest activities cost the court time and money. For instance, a defendant could file an appeal to stall payment of a court-ordered sum if an appeal bond was not required. Also, by posting an appeal bond, the defendant guarantees that the original judgment against them will be paid if they lose the appeal.

“Demonstrate good faith” - by Trump? < snerk >

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

So while payment will likely be delayed, one way or another it will eventually happen.

[Procrustus]

@Northern_Piper

I don’t know if it is done in the federal court system. Some state court systems do require a bond for an appeal.

Hence my question.

Generally you can appeal without posting the bond, but the plaintiff can execute on the judgment. The bond prevents that. He’ll post a bond.

[Moriarty]

@Procrustus

He’ll post a bond.

And probably want to settle the pending defamation lawsuit (Carroll I, as the courts have termed it, as I mentioned upthread).

Or is she precluded from claiming damages since she’s already been awarded this $5 million? From the path of this litigation, it’s apparent that you can defame somebody twice (even if you are just repeating the same falsehood). But I imagine that the damage to the victim’s reputation is really encapsulated by the first judgment.

So, as I think about it, I’m guessing that one gets dismissed.

[Northern_Piper]

@Procrustus

Generally you can appeal without posting the bond, but the plaintiff can execute on the judgment. The bond prevents that. He’ll post a bond.

Thanks for the explanation.

[The_Stainless_Steel_Rat]

@hajario

My guess is that he’ll cancel.

Anybody want to take odds on this? I say there is a 1-in-3 chance he’ll cancel, his ego won’t let him back out. I also think that it is even money that he walks out if the questioning gets to hot.

We shall see.

[Northern_Piper]

He can’t cancel. This is the beginning of his New Hampshire campaign. If he runs, he’s not running.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@slicedalone

Isn’t he risking legal actions, almost certain to result in more liability, by repeating his defamatory remarks about her, this morning (and presumably into the future)?

I think he’s almost certainly going to spew more lies about her and head back to court. If not today, then soon.

[Gyrate]

If he goes through with it, prepare for some epic Trumpian wharrgarbl.

I’d suggest a drinking game involving the words “witchhunt”, “radical” and “biased” but people would probably die of alcohol poisoning.

[carrps]

@Whack-a-Mole

@carrps

So far I’m counting $3,300,000 in damages.

This says $5 million awarded.

Yeah I was adding it up before they completed all the awards.

[dougrb]

Trump was supposed to be interviewed on WABC radio station this morning, but “Rescheduled” to tomorrow morning (we’ll see). Instead, they interviewed Tacopina. He was complaining about the jurors being anonymous.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@dougrb

He was complaining about the jurors being anonymous.

What was his complaint? That he could not unleash the MAGA mobs to threaten the juror’s families? That’s totally unfair.

The jurors are being protected from Mob Boss threats and intimidation. Sorry if he does not like that.

[dougrb]

Basically because he couldn’t weed out the “Trump Haters”.

[ratatoskK]

@slicedalone

Isn’t he risking legal actions, almost certain to result in more liability, by repeating his defamatory remarks about her, this morning (and presumably into the future)?

I have the same question.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@dougrb

Basically because he couldn’t weed out the “Trump Haters”.

But surely he (lawyer) was allowed to ask questions of prospective jurors, and to challenge a juror based on their perceived bias? I assume he was able to participate as usual in the jury selection process - challenge jurors as allowed and appropriate.

Eg. “Juror number 5, what are your feelings towards the Trump Presidency?”
“I hate Trump with the passion of a thousand burning suns. He’s a lying piece of scum.”
“I CHALLLENGE THIS JUROR”
“Juror 5, you are excused and may leave now”

He just was not given their names and addresses to unleash the MAGA mob on them.

[Folacin]

I read somewhere that there was at least one Trump supporter on the jury, not sure where or what the basis for the claim is.

[Peter_Morris]

@Folacin

I read somewhere that there was at least one Trump supporter on the jury,

Maybe you read it here.