Can you say SLAPP counter suit? Monster damages in the offing against Trump.
I thought it was that she couldn’t definitively say whether he penetrated her with his penis (rape) or his finger (sexual assault) so they went with the lesser charge. “Likelihood” isn’t the relevant element.
In a civil trial it’s the preponderance of the evidence. So, if you have a line of 50% probability of whether the evidence favors one or the other, if you’re a hair over or under, that’s how it’s determined. On that point, it was under 50%.
To show that likelihood is the relevant element:
In a civil lawsuit, such as a personal injury claim, the New York courts abide by a different evidentiary standard. Instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, an accident victim’s attorney must establish that the defendant is more likely than not at fault for the damages in question, based on a preponderance of the evidence. This is a much lower burden of proof. Preponderance of the evidence means the facts the plaintiff has proven that the defendants are more likely than not at fault.
While that’s discussing who is liable for an accident, it’s the general standard to apply liability in any civil case.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
But the problem was that for this specific distinction there was no evidence to be preponderated over. The only evidence was her testimony about the rape and she said she didn’t know. So even if one might look at Trump and think “Yeah there is probably at least a 51% chance he used his mini mushroom” This isn’t proved by the plaintiff’s evidence.
That is what the jury would have considered, I expect, which is why they drew the conclusion they made (as you said).
You’re welcome, I’m not a lawyer but I do follow lawyers online because the law is fascinating at times (and effects all of us whether we like it or not), and I pick up a thing or two on a rare occasion.
As you pointed out, testimony is evidence. And when one side presents evidence and the other side presents no evidence, what’s a jury to do? Trump couldn’t even be bothered to show up and defend himself.
BREAKING: The DOJ will not represent Trump in the other Carroll case:
Good. Why the hell should DOJ involve themselves in a lawsuit that was clearly, unambiguously nothing to do with the running of government?
" A federal judge on Wednesday rejected Donald Trump’s request for a new trial in a civil case brought by E Jean Carroll, where a jury found the former US president liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer and awarded her $5m in damages.
In a 59-page decision, US district Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan said the jury did not reach a “seriously erroneous result,” and the 9 May verdict was not a “miscarriage of justice”."
Poor Donny. This just isn’t his week.
And let’s hope next week isn’t his week either. And the week after that, and the week after that…
I can’t imagine trying to justify my actions by telling people, “I’m not a rapist, I’m just a sexual assaulter.”
He likely doesn’t understand what sexual assault means; therefore, it does not exist in his meager mind.
Try “dirty old man” instead.
That’s why you’re not a psychopath. Trumps justification is “I want” and he doesn’t care what anyone thinks contrary.
To boot, right now he’s got about 100 million fans screaming for him to keep doing more, more, MORE of the same!
I recommend we all stay off of Fifth Avenue for a while.
This might be the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me here. I’m crying.