This was directly just addressed in the closing arguments
Trump’s lawyers seem to be looking ahead to the appeal.
Perhaps they are going for an ineffective counsel appeal? “Whoops, we forgot to put on a defense argument! Our bad!”
I don’t think you can appeal a civil suit because of ineffective counsel. Your only option is to sue the lawyer for negligence.
Are there other avenues of appeal? This shit is going to get dragged out forever if so.
Nope. When you’ve got the answer that you want, or that fits your case, never ask further questions. It gives the witness a chance to repair the mistake.
It’s up to the other side to try to repair it, if possible.
IANAL, but if I were defending Trump, the fact that a possible DNA sample exists and Trump offered to have his DNA tested against it and was refused by the other side seems pretty exculpatory. Trump kmows if he’s guilty or innocent, and a DNA test is pretty reliable, so if he’s guilty why did he offer to be tested?
If I were on the jury, before assigning guilt I would want to know all the details around that. Why was the test refused? Was there some kind of legal trap available to Trump’s attorneys that the other side wanted to avoid? Or are they themselves not sure of the provenance of the stain on the dress?
Refusing to allow a DNA test on a major piece of evidence seems like a red flag to me, but I don’t kmow any more details. Maybe there’s a good reason for it.
IIRC, they asked and asked and asked and Trump delayed and delayed and delayed, past the judge-imposed deadline, until the trial was about to start, and then they offered again after that deadline (perhaps to try and delay the trial once again).
Which pattern of delays sounds like “Oh, crap, don’t let that evidence emerge! Delay, delay, delay… Oh, okay, the discovery deadline has passed, so now let’s pretend we want to test it after all, makes a good jury argument.”
But there’s a potential cascading effect. If, on a balance of probabilities, the jury finds that he did commit battery, then their own verdict on that point makes it easier to find that he defamed her in denying it.
But has that issue even come up in front of the jury? Trump’s lawyers didn’t call any evidence, so they can’t raise that issue now.
For the same reason that he promised to release his taxes during the 2016 campaign. For the same reason he told contractors he’d pay them for the work at his casinos. For the same reason he told people that Trump University would turn them into successful real-estate investors. He offered a DNA sample because he thought that the offer would make him look innocent. He does these things to get what he wants, not because he will follow through.
No offer, no promise, no signed contract from Trump means anything. Get the money (or the DNA sample) in advance. Until then, it’s just words.
That could be. I didn’t know the details, such as that they only offered it after discovery was closed. If that’s the case, and they offered while fully expecting that it would not be done, it could backfire on them. Again, if I were on the jury and I saw that my first question would be, “Why didn’t they offer to be tested during the normal evidentiary period? Sounds fishy.”
Does the jury even know that there was DNA evidence left behind?
If it’s not Trump’s DNA, why in the world would Carroll come forward with the dress? That seems like really strong evidence of Trump’s guilt.
The bottom line is that it wasn’t tested, and the reason it wasn’t tested was the legal maneuvering of Trump and his lawyers. I’m very sure if the testing had been cleared, Trump would’ve changed his mind at the last minute.
Think about it, Trump could’ve stopped this whole thing completely AND publicly humiliated Carroll by just agreeing to submit his DNA the first time they asked instead of trying to evade it. His lawyers could’ve pleaded with the judge to allow the test. The bottom line is that regardless of what he said in public, he was successful in shutting down the testing, and I think I know why.
I can’t argue with any of that. It makes sense.
I thought this was good, from a CBS news clip. “It’s not a ‘He said She said’ It’s a ‘11 She’s said and he didn’t say’”
“In order to find for him you have to find that Donald Trump, the nonstop liar, is the only one in this court telling the truth,” she said.
I heard that quote on the CBS Radio network news, as well. In case it’s not clear, the “11 shes” refers to the eleven witnesses which the plaintiff’s team had testify.
Interesting how the writers strike didn’t affect the comedy in the actual news.
Ha ha! Yeah. Like when Trump left Scotland promising to “confront” his accuser. Ha ha ha! Who needs writers for that dumb shit, amiright??
( Scrapes chain link fence “Trumpier… Come out and play-ee.”)