Depends entirely on the statutory definition in each jurisdiction
It’s so weird that Trump’s attorney said yesterday he wouldn’t present any testimony for the defense. I could imagine what a juror could think about that. I’ve been on juries three times where both sides had witnesses. In mmm all three cases some of the witnesses were ditzes but at least the attorneys could bring in somebody. Like maybe a paid witness could have tried to define away E. Jean Carroll’s claim. Some attorneys could be vague but convincing if they tried hard enough.
I think they decided that it was a lost cause, that there was no way for Trump to prevail without testifying, which was far too dangerous to consider. So they just got their jollies (or got Trump his) by beating her up during her testimony, and are going to make claims about “unfair” “New York” “Trump-hating” juries being given “biased” instructions from a “paid-off” judge," and raise enough money from outraged cultists to pay for whatever damages he will incur.
She’s not suing him for rape. In addition to defamation, Carroll is suing Donald for battery. That’s an offensive touching. So it would include violating somebody with your (generic you) short fingers or feebly attempting to stick your (again, the generic you) pathetic, mushroom shaped pee-pee into somebody else’s groin area.
At the time of the alleged offense (1995 or 96), under federal law, rape was based on “carnal knowledge” of a female. The only kind of conduct that could be charged as rape was a man forcibly penetrating a woman’s vagina with his penis. That definition has since been changed, and now other forms of sexual contact fall under the federal definition of rape.
As has been mentioned, that definition doesn’t matter to the allegation of battery in this case–it’s a question of what kind of sexual assault is being described, not whether an assault is being described–but to the extent anybody has been wondering what would make the statement “Donald Trump raped me” a true legal statement, technically it’s probably only sexual intercourse. I don’t know for sure what New York’s statute looked like at the time, but 1995 was pretty early so they may not have been too far off of the federal definition.
It’s NY state law that would apply. Federal courts sitting in diversity apply the law of the forum state on substantive issues.
Either they’re sure they’re going to win (unlikely, but maybe they know something about the jurors) or they’re sure they’re going to lose and just don’t want to give the proceeding any perceived legitimacy.
They had a forensic psychologist or psychiatrist expert on their witness list. I guess they didn’t think it would be enough.
The defendant not caring enough to show up and deny the charges should be great fodder for the plaintiff’s closing argument. “You jurors took this seriously. You were here every day. You paid attention. You heard the evidence. What you didn’t hear was a denial. Or an apology. Nor did you see the defendant show any respect for your time, the court’s time, Ms. Carroll, or the American justice system.”
…
I was defending rape cases in Washington state in the early 90s, and rape was any penetration by anything. I don’t know what NY law was at the time.
Trump says he’s coming back from Ireland to confront his accuser:
How long ago was this trial scheduled?
Since the trial will soon be over, and Trumps lawyers have said they will be offering no defence….
I just have to assume that by “confront “ Trump means “attack, lie, spew nasty comments, and get his surrogates to send death threats to Carroll, her lawyers, the jury and the judge.
(Damn embedding broken again)
It’s a disgrace that this should happen to a rich guy, apparently.
Why can’t he do that from Scotland? It’s just ridiculous
Kaplan also noted that Trump was notified of the April 25 start date on or about Feb. 7, giving him “quite ample time within which to make whatever logistical arrangements should be made for his attendance.
It’s theatre for the MAGAts
Trump has been given until 5pm on Sunday to decide if he wants to testify.
Very generous of the judge, given that he was told Tuesday Trump would not testify. So the plaintiff’s attorney probably relied on that and now has to spend all weekend preparing both his cross exam of Trump and his closing argument. Not an impossible task, but added stress.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a tee time in Ireland?
He’s actually not welcome and this was 6 years ago.
https://youtu.be/3pbTmXsfiYk?t=308
Denying him would be good grounds for appeal. I don’t think that he’s actually going to do it. It can’t possibly help him.