It’s Federal Rule 415, which applies in both criminal and civil cases, and allows the plaintiff to introduce evidence of previous sexual assaults by the defendant, even if never charged or convicted. Introduced in 1995 by Congress.
Here’s an article challenging it on due process grounds, but I saw in one article (can’t remember where) that the rule has withstood challenges in several circuits.
I saw some clips of his deposition on the news last night and couldn’t help but laugh at how ridiculous he looked with the orange paint all over his face. But yeah, that was like a five or ten second clip. I couldn’t stand to watch or listen to him for much longer than that.
Just to explain how ridiculous this complaint is, you should know that in a typical case the attorneys get this information in the form of a filled out questionnaire usually minutes before the jury pool is brought into the courtroom and jury selection begins.
Sometimes, on rare occasions, the jury will be selected amongst people who filled out these questionnaires well in advance, and there can be ‘research’ done, but typically the background checks that Tacopenis is referring to amount to googling people’s names or looking them up on social media.
Further, the entire pool of potential jurors was subject to questions by both lawyers and the judge. Any sort of investigation could have been conducted by simply asking them about their biases.
Could they lie? Well, yeah, but the legal system does sort of rely upon the notion that the average person is law abiding and honest. And time and time again juries prove to be reasonable and sensible.
Your honor, this is prejudicial, because it’s devastating to my case!
As I recall when researching the issue a few years ago, the argument was that people who do these types of things tend to do them more than once, and these cases are often subject to a ‘he said’/‘she said’ dispute in terms of evidence, since there may be no other physical evidence. That’s why congress expanded the admissibility of evidence in sex assault and sexual molestation cases.
I think that rationale aptly applies to Trump and Carroll.
I don’t know what was argued, but I do know that rule 404 allows for “other bad act” evidence when it’s used for certain purposes other than propensity (I.e. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.)
So…showing a “plan”? Or “absence of mistake”/lack of accident” (I.e. she didn’t just misconstrue the encounter).
(Caveat: I’m not sure if I’m blowing this by citing a criminal rule - it’s late, I’m tired, and this is just based on a quick google search)
Thanks for this. It’s not like you’re arguing it in court tomorrow.
But rather than propensity, I think the “grab 'em” tape does go to plan or method: what he describes that he does sounds very similar to what Ms Carroll apparently testified he did to her.
Now, there is the issue that she was aware of the tape, so it’s not entirely separated - but that’s what counsel will argue about, to show whether or not it’s reliable in the circumstances.
One of my hopes is that Carroll continues to sue Trump for defamation for each and every time he calls her a liar or delusional orbroken. Keep suing the fucker.
Carroll’s attorneys said Trump’s defamatory statements repeated during the town hall earlier this month go directly to the issue of punitive damages, which are intended to punish the person found liable.
Breaking, if unsurprising news at this point, so no details, and I have no idea of the legal plausibility of it, but figured I’d share. I’ll link in the other thread as well, because it applies to both questions. Here, because it’s amending the existing decision.
It isn’t amending the existing decision, though, not in the case where a judgment has already been rendered by the jury. For clarity’s sake, with an understanding that it’s all a lot to keep track of:
E. Jean Carroll amended her claim in her original lawsuit, which is still pending. There were issues around Trump’s rights to stop her claims because his nasty statements were made while he was still president. I believe those assertions of Trump’s for special treatment have been pierced and the lawsuit has a green light to proceed. But it hasn’t gotten to the point of a trial yet, so not yet adjudicated.
Prior statements like that are generally not considered to have much probative value and are very difficult to have admitted as evidence. Courts generally do not want to have “propensity” evidence admitted. In the Carroll case, the admissibility of that tape will likely be a ground of appeal.
In a counter claim filed Tuesday night, Trump alleges that Carroll defamed him when she appeared on CNN the morning after the jury awarded her $5 million in damages. Carroll was asked about the verdict finding Trump sexually abused Carroll but did not rape her as she alleged. Carroll said, “Oh, yes he did.”
Maybe this is redundant to say, but he clearly has no case. The jury found that the evidence does not make it likely that she had technically been “raped” under the narrow definition they were using in court. But what the jury did say Trump did is what most reasonable people would call “rape” in common language, so she is not lying, and without a lie you can’t call it defamation.
I am certain the part he dosen’t like and must respond to is that she said his penis was so small she couldn’t tell if he penatrated her or not. So this should be allowed to go to court so that Trump can show the evidence to the people as to the length (and girth) of his penis. Although I am not certain if the mushroom head counts a girth, a jury would need to decide that.
