E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump

In November 2019, Carroll filed a defamation lawsuit with the New York Supreme Court. The suit states that Trump had damaged her reputation, substantially harmed her professionally, and caused emotional pain.

Decades ago, the now President of the United States raped me. When I had the courage to speak out about the attack, he defamed my character, accused me of lying for personal gain, even insulted my appearance. No woman should have to face this. But this lawsuit is not only about me. I am filing this on behalf of every woman who has ever been harassed, assaulted, silenced, or spoken up only to be shamed, fired, ridiculed and belittled.[20]

— E. Jean Carroll, in an email explaining her first lawsuit to NPR in 2019

After the lawsuit was filed, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham described the lawsuit as "frivolous" and claimed Carroll's story was fraudulent.[20]

President Trump in 2019

In January 2020 Carroll's attorneys served a request for a DNA sample from Trump for "analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present" on a black dress she was wearing when the alleged assault occurred.[4] In December 2020 Carroll said she was willing to delay collecting the sample and testimony from Trump in exchange for earlier access to other relevant records.[21] The DNA sample request included a DNA report on Carroll and five others who may have contacted the dress during a photo shoot.[22]

In September 2020 government lawyers from the Department of Justice (DOJ) asserted that Trump had acted in his official capacity while responding to Carroll's accusation; they said that the Federal Tort Claims Act[lower-alpha 4] grants their department the right to take the case from Trump's private lawyers and move it to federal court. A White House official also argued that the act provides precedent for the government to exercise this right.[23] Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan stated that "Trump's effort to wield the power of the U.S. government to evade responsibility for his private misconduct is without precedent."[23] In October 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan (of no relation to Roberta Kaplan)[24] rejected the DOJ's motion, arguing that the president is not a government employee and that Trump's comments were not related to his job as such.[25] The following month, the DOJ filed an appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.[25]

In June 2021 (during the Biden administration) the DOJ argued to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that DOJ lawyers should defend Trump as a federal employee, stating, "Speaking to the public and the press on matters of public concern is undoubtedly part of an elected official's job."[26] On September 27, 2022, the appeals court ruled that "we cannot say what the District would do" in terms of allowing Trump to be shielded by his former office as U.S. president.[27] Trump's attorney Alina Habba praised the ruling as a reversal of the District Court's stance (that the comments were not executive business).[27]

In January 2023 the District of Columbia (D.C.) appeals court held oral arguments before a full panel of judges.[28] Trump's lawyers argued that his comments fell within the scope of his employment, while some judges pointed out that D.C. law holds employers responsible when their employees cause individuals harm in the scope of their employment but not otherwise.[29][30] Judge Catharine Easterly noted that employer liability cases usually have a trial record and jury verdict to refer to, while Judge John Howard questioned whether further fact-finding was warranted.[30] In March, Judge Kaplan postponed the trial for the defamation claim while the appeals court continued to deliberate.[31] In April, the D.C. Court of Appeals declined to rule whether or not Trump was speaking in his official capacity,[32] implying that it was the role of a factfinder to determine.[33]

On April 21, 2023, the Second Circuit Appeals Court said it should not be responsible for deciding the question of whether Trump had acted within the scope of his role as president when he made public comments about Carroll, and it remanded the issue to the U.S. District Court for Judge Kaplan to decide.[34][35] In July, the DOJ recanted its position that Trump was acting in his official capacity.[36]

In March 2023 Judge Kaplan ruled that the infamous Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape and the testimonies of Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff (who both allege that Trump began groping them without permission) would be admissible at the trial for the original lawsuit.[37][lower-alpha 5]

A photograph of (left to right) Trump, Carroll, Carroll's then-husband John Johnson, and Trump's then-wife Ivana Trump in 1987. When shown this image, Trump mistook Carroll for his second wife, despite having said Carroll was "not [his] type".[39]

On October 12, 2022, Trump published a lengthy post on Truth Social against E. Jean Carroll, to which he attached a photograph of her from The Washington Post taken in June 2019. Carroll would later successfully claim this post as defamatory in her lawsuit against him.[40][41][42]

This "Ms. Bergdorf Goodman" case is a complete con job ... I don't know this woman, have no idea who she is, other than it seems she got a picture of me many years ago, with her husband, shaking my hand on a reception line at a celebrity charity event. She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City Department Store and, within minutes, "swooned" her. It is a Hoax and a lie, just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years. ... She has no idea what day, what week, what month, what year, or what decade this so-called "event" supposedly took place. The reason she doesn't know is because it never happened, and she doesn't want to get caught up with details or facts that can be proven wrong. If you watch Anderson Cooper's interview with her, where she was promoting a really crummy book, you will see that it is a complete Scam. She changed her story from beginning to end, after the commercial break, to suit the purposes of CNN and Andy Cooper. ... For the record, E. Jean Carroll is not telling the truth, is a woman who I had nothing to do with, didn't know, and would have no interest in knowing her if I ever had the chance.[43]

— Excerpted from the October 12, 2022 Truth Social post by Donald Trump

Trump's ex-wife Marla Maples, whom Trump mistook for Carroll in the 1987 photograph of the latter two together[39]

Trump was deposed by Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan on October 19.[44] Trump said that he usually had security guards with him but was unable to name any working for him at that time.[13]^: 73–76 He denied reaching out to Bergdorf Goodman ahead of his statements in 2019, arguing that "if it did happen, it would have been reported within minutes."[13]^: 78 He accused Carroll and her lawyer of being "aligned with Hillary Clinton", an assertion he based on "somebody [having] mentioned it", but admitted that he had no knowledge of Carroll's political party or documentation of her pursuing a political agenda;[45] he went on to repeatedly accuse Roberta Kaplan of being a political operative of Clinton or the Democratic Party.[46] When asked if anyone had given him information on Carroll conspiring with that party or New York magazine, Trump said, "I'll let you know."[13]^: 202 He threatened to sue Carroll and Kaplan after the proceedings were complete.[47][48] He also accused Carroll of attempting to sabotage his 2024 presidential campaign by keeping him "busy with litigation."[45][13]^{: 130–131} Trump called the litigation a hoax comparable to supposed ruses against him related to both Russia and Ukraine.[49]

Trump reiterated that Carroll was "not my type", and told the lawyer, "You would not be a choice of mine either ... under any circumstances."[50] Trump was shown the photograph he had characterized as a reception line at a charity event, but proceeded to mistakenly identify the image of Carroll as his second wife, Marla Maples, despite his first wife Ivana Trump also being in the picture;[3] upon recognizing his mistake, he protested that the photo was "very blurry". He then confirmed that all of his wives were his "type", and that by type he primarily meant physical type.[51] Despite attacking Carroll for not remembering the exact year of the alleged incident, Trump was unable to state the exact years of the beginning or end of any of his marriages when asked, and claimed that he was unsure if he had any extramarital affairs during his first marriage (including with Maples, despite this affair having regularly featured in New York tabloids).[51]

Trump reiterated in his deposition that he did not know Carroll before she sued him, calling her a "nut job" and inaccurately asserting that in her CNN interview with Anderson Cooper she "actually indicated that she loved" the alleged assault and "said it was very sexy to be raped".[49][18] (Carroll had actually said, "I was not thrown on the ground and ravished, which... The word rape carries so many sexual connotations. This was not—this was not sexual. It just hurt. ... I think most people think of rape as being sexy.")[18][19][15] He said Carroll alleged he "swooned" her, a word he said he used because he thought it would be more polite than saying fucked.[51] When asked if he had made the statements in the Access Hollywood tape (e.g., "when you're a star, [beautiful women] let you do it. They let you do anything. ... grab 'em by the pussy"), Trump responded, "Well, historically, that's true with stars. If you look over the last million years, that's largely true, unfortunately or fortunately." He then agreed that he was such a "star".[52]

On November 24, 2022, Carroll sued Trump for battery under the Adult Survivors Act (a law passed the previous May which allows sexual-assault victims to file civil suits beyond expired statutes of limitations).[53][54] Carroll made a renewed claim of defamation, citing Trump's statements on Truth Social from October.[55][56] The second suit alleges that: Trump manhandled Carroll, "pulled down her tights", groped around her genitals and raped her;[57] this reputedly left Carroll unable to develop sexual relationships.[52] Carroll sought unspecified damages for the two charges and for Trump to retract his Truth Social statements about her.[57] Lawyers for Trump said in a December 19 court filing that they would request a dismissal of the lawsuit partially on the basis that the New York law is invalid due to its allegedly contradicting the state's constitution regarding due process.[58][47] Judge Kaplan set an April 25, 2023, trial date and denied the request to dismiss the lawsuit.[47][59]

As the case is the second to be called E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump, it is distinguished by the name Carroll II.[60][61]

On January 31, 2023, Joe Tacopina became Trump's lead lawyer in the case.[62] On February 10, Tacopina said Trump would be willing to provide a DNA sample, though the discovery period had ended after three years of Carroll's lawyers requesting such a sample.[4][5] Further, Tacopina stipulated that an appendix from Carroll's report (chiefly regarding her own DNA) must first be proffered and that Trump's DNA would be submitted only to be compared to the material on the dress.[63][22] Carroll's lawyer asserted that the motion was a "bad-faith effort to taint the potential jury pool".[22] On February 15 Judge Kaplan dismissed Trump's offer as an out-of-line delay tactic.[64] Further, the judge argued that the presence of Trump's DNA would not conclusively prove whether a rape occurred as no sperm cells were detected.[65] In late March, the judge prohibited any mention of DNA evidence at the trial.[5][lower-alpha 6]

On February 16, 2023, Trump's lawyers requested that the allegations from Leeds and Stoynoff and the Access Hollywood tape be barred as evidence (the tape having been cited by Carroll's lawyer as evidence of a larger pattern of sexual misconduct).[68][69] Carroll's counsel argued that the accounts of the two women demonstrate a "consistent pattern".[70] On March 2 Trump's lawyers again asked for the tape's dismissal, arguing that it does not demonstrate a pattern of behavior consistent with Carroll's accusation.[71][72] In March, Kaplan ruled that the tape and testimony from the two women would be admissible at the trial for the second suit[lower-alpha 5] along with testimony from two Bergdorf Goodman employees.[73] Trump's purported "rebuttal damage expert" was rejected because he did not qualify as an expert witness.[74] Kaplan also denied a joint request from both parties to consolidate the two lawsuits into one trial.[31]

On February 23 Trump's lawyers requested that the defamation claim in the second lawsuit be dismissed, arguing that his Truth Social post from October was merely a response regarding the first lawsuit which mostly repeated previous positions (despite making original incursions),[lower-alpha 7] and was thus protected under supposed "absolute litigation privilege" provided by New York State Civil Rights Law § 74.[77][76][78] In late March, Judge Kaplan denied this request.[79]

On March 11 Judge Kaplan asked Trump and Carroll if they had any objection to the use of an anonymous jury.[80] On March 23 Kaplan ruled that the jury would be anonymous for the trial. He cited Trump's incendiary rhetoric against perceived enemies (including officials) ahead of his criminal indictment in New York related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.[81][73][82] On April 10 Kaplan ruled that the jury would be anonymous even to the lawyers involved in the case, citing threats by Trump supporters against Judge Juan Merchan, who was overseeing the New York criminal investigation of The Trump Organization.[82] On April 14 Kaplan upheld his ruling for an anonymous jury and denied a request from Trump's team for information about its members on the basis of possible bias after they cited negative online comments made about him on Carroll's June 2019 New York article.[83][84]

On April 10 Trump and Carroll were given ten days to declare whether they would attend the trial.[85] Defense attorney Tacopina speculated about "logistical and financial burdens upon New York City" associated with Trump's physical appearance. On April 20 the judge argued that Trump had had "ample time" to make arrangements for trial and said it would be no easier for the Secret Service to protect him at his newly announced April 27 campaign event in New Hampshire than at the simultaneous trial.[86][87]

On April 11 defense attorney Tacopina asked to delay the trial by a month, arguing that media coverage of the Daniels scandal would taint the jury pool. Carroll's lawyer argued that Trump "instigated (and sought to benefit from) ... much of the very coverage about which he now complains."[88] On April 17 Kaplan agreed with Carroll's lawyer and ruled against the delay request, arguing that there was no reason to assume jury selection would be easier to conduct in May.[89][90]

On April 13 Trump's attorneys asked to reopen discovery about whether Carroll knew that her lawyer's firm had received donations from Democrat-aligned billionaire and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman. Judge Kaplan allowed discovery for the "carefully circumscribed examination of that narrow question". Trump's attorneys requested an extra month to make this inquiry, but Kaplan refused to delay the trial.[91][92] On April 21 the judge sealed the information related to Hoffman's alleged contributions, as requested by Carroll's team.[93]

The trial began on April 25, 2023, in federal court at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.[57][94] That day, the judge selected a jury of six men and three women,[95] anonymous even to the judge, and it was arranged that the jury would be transported by U.S. Marshals from an underground garage throughout the trial.[96] In opening statements that day, the judge advised both counsels to tell their clients to avoid comments likely to "inspire violence".[94]

On April 26 Carroll testified; she said she was unaware if any employees were present during the alleged incident because the department was on a different story and she was focused on riding the escalator, while also supposing that the encounter would make a humorous anecdote. She said after entering the dressing room, Trump slammed her against the wall (hurting the back of her head) and digitally penetrated her before doing so with his penis (causing vaginal pain). She said she struggled against Trump, and upon leaving the store, was "extremely rattled" and in disbelief about what happened. She talked with her friend Lisa Birnbach on the phone, thinking, "If Lisa thought it was funny then it was not a bad thing and I didn't completely do a stupid thing," Carroll recalled thinking. "I had not processed it. I had not processed what was going on." Birnbach told Carroll, who was laughing on the phone, that it wasn't funny, that Carroll was raped and should report the assault to the police, Carroll testified.[97]

Carroll said that the following evening she told her friend and co-worker Carol Martin, who reputedly confirmed Carroll's fear that if she publicly discussed the incident, Trump would retaliate via his legal team.[97] She further acknowledged her political distaste of Trump but said, "I'm settling a personal score because he called me a liar repeatedly and it really has decimated my reputation." She said she did not go public during Trump's 2016 campaign because "the more women who came forward to accuse him, the better he did in the polls."[97] Additionally, Carroll said she initially thought the incident happened in 1994 or 1995, until realizing Lisa Birnbach visited Mar-a-Lago to write a February 1996 New York story on Trump (after 5–6 months of communicating by phone), which Carroll said would not have occurred if her friend knew about the alleged attack.[98][99]

Also on April 26, Carroll's lawyers introduced a 2017 email exchange between her and Martin, indicating an intention to "scheme" by doing their "patriotic duty". Carroll stated that she was not scheming to "bring down Donald Trump", as Tacopina suggested the messages could imply.[100] A former Bergdorf Goodman manager testified that departments were often left unattended and dressing rooms left open (though the doors would have automatically locked if closed).[97] The judge ruled that evidence related to Reid Hoffman's funding of the trial was inadmissible, saying, "I've determined there is virtually nothing there in terms of credibility."[101] Trump commented about the suit on Truth Social, calling it a scam and mentioning the (inadmissible) DNA evidence. Judge Kaplan warned Tacopina that Trump should stop making such comments, as they constitute a potential liability to him.[102]

On April 27 Carroll was cross-examined by Tacopina, who asked why she did not scream during the alleged incident. She said she "was too much in panic to scream". She said she was surprised by the sudden turn to assault, which she alleged began with Trump pushing her against the wall and kissing her, and ended with no communication between them; she said she noticed no other customers as she left. She said she had experienced daily regret since first suing Trump due to feeling threatened, elaborating that she had received many negative comments echoing Trump's attacks. Additionally, she said she was unable to recall the specific meaning of her 2017 email response to Martin.[103] Carroll said she omitted the incident from her diary because she thought it would force her to think about the negative experience, and said she was inspired to come forward by the #MeToo movement, especially the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases. She said that although she wanted her book to succeed, she was not struggling financially. Tacopina mentioned the dress Carroll allegedly wore during the incident, leading the judge to stop testimony for the day, though Tacopina claimed he had not planned to mention the barred DNA evidence.[104]

Carroll finished testifying on May 1, whereat Tacopina cited inconsistencies in Carroll's account, such as her stating that she had not used the Bergdorf fitting rooms in the years after the alleged assault before saying that she actually had used them since the incident. Tacopina played an audio clip of Carroll saying that she did not blame Trump for the cessation of her romantic life, but that she "just didn't have the luck to meet that person that would cause me to be desirous again" and that "maybe in that dressing room my desire for desire was killed." Carroll had said that she was a "big fan" of Trump's show The Apprentice due to its outstanding "witty competition". She also asked on social media, "Would you have sex with Donald Trump for $17,000? Even if you could a) give the money to charity? b) close your eyes? And he's not allowed to speak." Additionally, Tacopina asked if Carroll had seen a 2012 episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit involving a rape in a Bergdorf fitting room, which Carroll said she had not seen and called an "astonishing" coincidence. Tacopina also referred to an incident in which Carroll called the police to report vandalism to a mailbox, prompting her to explain, "I don't want anybody to know that I suffer. Up until now, I would be ashamed to let people know what is actually going on."[105]

Also on May 1, Trump's team requested a mistrial, alleging that the judge was being unfair in Carroll's favor. During cross-examination Tacopina had questioned a passage from Carroll's 2019 book suggesting that all men should be sent to Montana for "retraining", and the judge explained it was an allusion to Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal (the title of which Carroll took for her 2019 book's subtitle), which satirically suggests that poor Irish people might ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food to the rich. Tacopina complained that the judge, by providing this clarification, had "bolstered [Carroll's] testimony". Judge Kaplan denied the request for a mistrial without comment.[106][105][107]

On May 2 witnesses testified for Carroll. Lisa Birnbach said that in 1996, remembering having met with Trump that January for a story she was writing, said that Carroll called her, and short of breath, alleged that Trump had just assaulted her. Birnbach reputedly offered to transport Carroll to the police, but the latter refused and requested that their conversation remain secret. Birnbach said she did not talk about it again until 2019, once Carroll had decided to go public with her account.[99][108][109] Jessica Leeds, a retired stockbroker, testified that Trump had suddenly groped her in a similar manner to Carroll while Leeds was traveling on an airplane in the late 1970s.[108] Leeds said a flight attendant invited her to move to first class and sat her next to [110] Donald Trump, whom she did not know, and that he groped her breast and tried to kiss her, but that she broke away when he started reaching up her skirt. She recalled passengers sitting behind them, who did not intervene, and reasoned that the incident may have lasted less than a minute.[108][111] Leeds said she did not speak about the incident but that Trump later saw her and referred to her as "that cunt from the airplane".[109][112] Also on May 2, Tacopina confirmed that Trump would not testify at the trial.[113]

On May 3 video of Trump's deposition was shown to the jury. Trump stated that he rarely shopped at Bergdorf Goodman and reiterated that he did not read Carroll's written accusations in either her book or in her New York magazine article. A clinical psychologist testified that she evaluated Carroll and found that she had been harmed by the alleged rape but found no signs of mental disorder.[114] Journalist Natasha Stoynoff testified that while visiting Mar-a-Lago in December 2015, Trump brought her to look at a room while his wife Melania was changing outfits; he allegedly forced her against a wall and kissed her while she tried to push him off and told her they were going to have an affair, citing the well-known "best sex I've ever had" quote attributed to his previous wife Marla Maples. Stoynoff said she only told a limited number of people because she did not want it to affect her career. A clip was played to the jury of Trump denying Stoynoff's claim while running for president, in which he implies she is unattractive. Additionally, on May 3 Tacopina announced that Trump's team would not present a defense case. Tacopina said that, due to health concerns, they decided not to call an expert witness they had proposed.[114]

On May 4 news anchor Carol Martin testified and corroborated Carroll's account of their conversation following the alleged assault, thinking it occurred sometime between 1994 and 1996, and remembering Carroll saying she had also told Birnbach. Martin said she and Carroll did not "scheme" against Trump, though the former demonstrated hate for Trump in some of her text messages.[115] Clips of Trump's deposition were played.[51] Both the prosecution and defense rested their case on May 4. That day Trump made a statement from Ireland indicating he might come to the trial. The judge allowed Trump to move to reopen the case, but Trump did not respond by the May 7 deadline.[116][117]

On May 8 closing arguments were made.[118] Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan cited her client's attire during the alleged assault—a wool dress with tights—as indicating the weather at the time, which Carroll had narrowed down to after Birnbach's collaboration with Trump on a February 1996 article, further thinking it happened on a Thursday because the store was open late. Additionally, it reputedly happened while Carroll hosted a talk show on America's Talking (1994–1996), which Kaplan argued Trump likely saw in part because it was on immediately before an interview with him filmed in the same building for the same network.[119] Kaplan argued that Carroll "was trying to come to grips with the fact that she was being attacked", which she remembered in "great detail". Kaplan cited the moment in Trump's deposition when he mixed up Carroll with his wife, evidently debunking his claim that she was not his "type"; further, Kaplan asserted that Trump followed an established pattern of behavior of his when caught in wrongdoing by making an excuse (that the photograph was reputedly blurry).[119] Another of Carroll's lawyers argued that Tacopina relied on rhetoric rather than evidence and cited Trump's failure to deny the charges in person, further ridiculing the idea that Carroll, Birnbach, and Martin secretly conspired to take down Trump based on the plot of an episode of Law & Order: SVU.[119] Tacopina focused on the gaps in the plaintiff's case, particularly the unknown date of the incident, asserting that she "tailored her testimony" by saying she realized it was on a Thursday, and accused her of failing to bring the case to police because it "would never make it through a police investigation in a million years".[120] Tacopina repeated Trump's dismissal of the Access Hollywood tape as "locker room talk" and argued that it shows Trump bragging about "women letting you do something" rather than sexual assault. He argued that Leeds's story was false because other airline passengers would not have sat by and let it happen. He also asserted that the prosecution could have called Trump as a witness but, "Instead, what they want is for you to hate him enough to ignore the facts."[120]

The jury reached a unanimous decision on May 9, after deliberating for less than three hours.[121] Considering the preponderance of the evidence, the jury delivered a verdict that first stated that Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her, and next stated that Carroll did prove that Trump had sexually abused her, and also stated that Trump defamed Carroll with false statements made with actual malice in the October 2022 Truth Social post; thus the jury awarded Carroll a total of $5 million in damages from Trump.[42][122][123]

In an appearance on CNN the day after the verdict, Trump continued to disparage Carroll; he called her a "whack job"; said the trial was "rigged"; denied raping Carroll and said "I didn't do anything else either"; and claimed "I don't know who the hell she is."[124] This led Carroll to consider a third defamation lawsuit against Trump concerning these comments.[125]

On May 11, Trump appealed the verdict.[126] On June 23, Trump's lawyers proffered $5.55 million to a federal court in case the appeal failed.[127][128]

On June 8, Trump's team requested the award to be reduced to under $1 million or that a new trial should be held regarding damages, citing the jury's supposed rejection of the rape claim.[129][130] Carroll's lawyers said that Trump mischaracterized the verdict (that he sexually abused Carroll) as supporting his contention that he did not rape her.[131] On July 19, Judge Kaplan affirmed that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common meaning of the word[lower-alpha 8] and ruled against altering the award amount.[132][133][134][135]

On June 27, Trump filed a counterclaim alleging that Carroll had defamed him, particularly when she told CNN "yes he did" rape her in response to a question about the jury not finding him liable for that offense. According to Carroll's lawyer, four other statements made in the counterclaim occurred outside New York's one-year statute of limitations.[136] On August 7, Judge Kaplan dismissed the counterclaim.[137] A few days later, Trump appealed the dismissal.[138]