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

Politics & Elections
481

Here’s one.

Later, when the judge asked during jury selection if anyone felt he had been treated unfairly by the court system, Trump raised his hand slyly. The gesture drew laughter from some prospective jurors and a comment from the judge, who told Trump: “We know how you stand.”

and another

He glared and scowled at times as the jury was being picked, slyly raising his hand at one point when Judge Lewis A. Kaplan asked if anyone felt Trump had been treated unfairly by the court system. The gesture drew laughs from some people in the courtroom and a retort from the judge, who said, “We know where you stand.”

482

I heard on a Meidas podcast yesterday that as Trump departed he ‘cut off’ the jury members as they were filing out. Way to respect the folks deciding your fate.

483

It’s standard intimidation. Showing them who’s the strong one.

Go ahead, decide to find that I now owe that hooker a paltry few million more. Which is pocket change to me but I still won’t pay because I don’t have to and nobody can make me.

Oh, yeah one more thing … Don’t forget you’ll all be in the gulag as soon as I’m Emperor this time next year.

484

I know you would. I know you would,” Kaplan replied. “You just can’t control yourself in this circumstance, apparently.”

Trump shot back: “You can’t either.”

‘You just can’t control yourself’: Judge threatens to kick Trump out of courtroom (msn.com)

the trial has started this morning without trump. carroll back on the stand, cross exam to go 30ish minutes. then there will be expert witnesses, on reputation restoration.

485

it is a shame we don’t have audio on the trial, i would love to hear how this sounded:

Carroll, still on cross-examination, was asked by Habba to explain the title of her first book, a 1985 collection of essays named, “Female Difficulties: Sorority Sisters, Rodeo Queens, Frigid Women, Smut Stars, and Other Modern Girls.”

Habba was apparently trying to show that Carroll had once written about “smut stars,” or pornographic actors, as if that would somehow make her immune to the onslaught of sexual threats that filled her inbox after outing Trump as having sexually abused her.

“When I originally asked you what this book was about, how did you describe it?” Habba asked. “Objection,” interrupted Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, no relation to the judge.
“What’s the objection?” the judge asked.

“I don’t know what she’s talking about,” Carroll’s lawyer answered.

“Neither do I,” the judge responded.

486

I saw a defense attorney try that sort of thing on A&E’s “Court Cam”. The judge was like, “No delays! You can call your witness or you can leave; if you choose the latter this case will be dismissed!”

He chose the latter and the case was dismissed.

487

Dismissed? Are you sure he was scolding the defense?

488

IIRC, it was a personal injury case involving a traffic accident and the guy was defending himself. He just had the one witness.

489

That sounds like something out of Night Court, not real life.

:man_facepalming:

490

And juries notice that kind of stuff. They know the judge has a very poor opinion of Habba’s abilities as a trial attorney, and, as the trial goes on, will begin to tune out when she speaks.

491

“When I originally asked you what this book was about, how did you describe it?”

What kind of question is that? Could she (Carroll) just say “I don’t remember exactly how I described it, but it will be in the court transcripts - perhaps you should check them”?

492

That’s a standard cross-examination tactic, trying to get the witness to contradict her/himself, thus proving! that said witness is a liar! and nothing s/he says can be taken as true! ladies and gentlemen of the jury!

Attorneys do it in pretrial depositions in civil cases, too.

ETA: The slightest deviance from the exact former answer will be twisted out of all recognition in pursuit of this tactic.

493

But could the witness simply say “I don’t remember - go check the transcripts”? Especially when phrased like this.

494

You have to lay the groundwork for a question like that. There may be a good reason for the question, but as counsel you have to put it in context, for both the witness and the judge. It should go something like this:

Q “Do you recall that I asked you a question about the book, Title, at the deposition on date?”

If witness answers “No”, then say:

“I’m going to ask my colleague to give me copies of the transcript for that day.”

second lawyer hands copies of transcript to lead counsel

“Your Honour, I have here copies of the deposition transcript of this witness, dated date. It’s been entered into our document list as D-###. May I give a copy to the clerk for Your Honour, and then may I give a copy to the witness to refresh her memory?”

Judge rules on request; if satisfied that the document is properly disclosed to plaintiff in pre-trial, will likely allow it.

Q “Now, I would ask the witness to please turn to p. ## of the transcript, at lines ## to ##. Do you see where I previously asked you about this book? And Your Honour, do you see that question at line ## on p. ##?”

Judge “Yes, I’m there. Please proceed with your questions.”

Witness turns to page

A “Yes, I see that.”

Q “Okay, now my question is words, words, words.”

The point is that examining a witness, whether in chief or in cross, requires prep by the lawyers, especially on a case with lots of documents (which all complex cases have). The lawyers have to be able to put the witness and the judge at the right spot in the documents before they start asking the questions about the document, so everyone is literally on the same page before the questions start. And they have to assume that they will need to do that for every document that they put to the witness.

That kind of prep takes a lot of pre-trial time ($$$) and a team of lawyers and para-legals (more $$$). It also takes a lead lawyer who is experienced in examining a witness on documents.

(I’m not that kind of lawyer; don’t do trials. But I’ve been involved in cases with skilled trial barristers and it’s a delight to watch a seamless examination by a lawyer who really knows what she’s doing. )

(And as always, IANAUSL, so take everything I say about trial process in the US courts with caution.)

495

You got it right. Except these days it’s almost always done by showing a video clip of the deposition.

496

You guys down south with your hi-tech gear! If parchment and hand calligraphy was good enough for the English courts in 1700, it’s good enough for us, b’Gad!

497

within your example, where does the “points to the witness, liar, liar!” waving paper (that maybe blank), happen? i believe that is what ms habba was hoping to do, with full enjoyment of her client. perhaps he would join in.

498

Somehow, someway, DJT will find the time to attend the funeral of his MIL, without the trial being delayed.

499

And here is the point- how is that book relevant to the case?

500

It wasn’t in the courtroom but instead in a press conference on the court house steps afterwards.

“But I was told to sit down today, I was yelled at, and I’ve had a judge who was unhinged slamming a table. Let me be very clear, I don’t tolerate that in my life, I’m not going to tolerate it here. And you know what? You shouldn’t either, because not every American citizen gets a camera and a microphone. And what I’m seeing is such a demise of American judicial system and democracy.”

ETA: Fixed link previously it went here.:flushed: