Jury finds that Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case

[Torie]

12 people listened to all of the evidence and followed instructions to find it was more likely than not that he sexually abused her (tort definition, sure). So they found he was guilty of doing. It doesn't mean that they thought he did it beyond a reasonable doubt, or that they would if the rules of evidence in a criminal trial were followed, and that statement doesn't imply such either.

It is absolutely correct to say that the jury found that Trump sexually abused her. However, they did not “find him guilty.”

Look, I’m not gonna die on the hill of being against non-lawyers using the term “guilty” colloquially. I just don’t think think we need to give the Trumpists any low hanging fruit by misstating things.

We call them tortfeasers in the trade. Isn't that glorious?

[Torie]

Alan Dershowitz's essay of the day appeared in my morning's in box.

"It is also hard to reconcile the jury’s finding that he did not rape her with its finding that he maliciously defamed her by essentially saying that he did not rape her. 

'Accordingly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to which this case will be appealed, will have its work cut out for it. There will be other substantial issues as well on appeal. They include the extension of the statute of limitations, after it had already expired, which allowed the plaintiff to bring a quarter-century-old case. This may well constitute denial of due process as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Other appellate issues will include the judge’s strange ruling that the names of the jurors will remain anonymous even to the lawyers, thus denying them the ability to research them and determine whether any hidden biases may have existed. This may violate the defendant’s constitutional right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment."

The bolded bit had popped into my own mind immediately after I read the verdict. That is just weird.

The denial to the defense's attorneys to do research on the juror's is troubling under the American law (in Britain they have no voir dire of jurors at all),  as well as the reanimation of criminal exposure after a statute of limitations has expired.

Dersh thinks it more likely than not that this verdict will be reversed on appeal, and from what I know as a non expert in the field, I agree with him.

The Bragg indictment against Trump is problematical too. The hunt for the case that will really nail Trump remains a work in progress.

[Torie]

Alan Dershowitz's essay of the day appeared in my morning's in box.

"It is also hard to reconcile the jury’s finding that he did not rape her with its finding that he maliciously defamed her by essentially saying that he did not rape her. 

'Accordingly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to which this case will be appealed, will have its work cut out for it. There will be other substantial issues as well on appeal. They include the extension of the statute of limitations, after it had already expired, which allowed the plaintiff to bring a quarter-century-old case. This may well constitute denial of due process as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Other appellate issues will include the judge’s strange ruling that the names of the jurors will remain anonymous even to the lawyers, thus denying them the ability to research them and determine whether any hidden biases may have existed. This may violate the defendant’s constitutional right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment."

The bolded bit had popped into my own mind immediately after I read the verdict. That is just weird.

The denial to the defense's attorneys to do research on the juror's is troubling under the American law (in Britain they have no voir dire of jurors at all),  as well as the reanimation of criminal exposure after a statute of limitations has expired.

Dersh thinks it more likely than not that this verdict will be reversed on appeal, and from what I know as a non expert in the field, I agree with him.

The Bragg indictment against Trump is problematical too. The hunt for the case that will really nail Trump remains a work in progress.

I don't think it's hard to reconcile the jury's findings. Trump he said he never even met her. Not that he sexually assaulted her but did not penetrate.

But how do you find that Trump was defaming her by denying he raped her, when the jury found that he did not rape her? That is the conundrum Dersh was discussing.

[Torie]

Because he said a whole lot more than just he didn't rape her. And I don't think he even said that.

Here is what she said:

""I am here because Donald Trump raped me, and when I wrote about it, he said it didn't happen," Carroll said on the stand. "He lied and shattered my reputation, and I am here to try to get my life back."

[Torie]

Alan Dershowitz

I stopped reading right there.

Not your type?

[Torie]

But how do you find that Trump was defaming her by denying he raped her, when the jury found that he did not rape her? That is the conundrum Dersh was discussing.

C'mon Torie.

You are smart enough to understand the difference between a jury finding that someone did not commit rape and a jury not finding that someone committed rape. The former is a finding that it was sufficiently proven, the latter is a finding that it wasn't. The finding that something was not sufficiently proven is not a finding that it didn't happen, although of course it does mean that it may not have happened.

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174975870/trump-carroll-verdict

The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump raped Carroll.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-verdict/674001/

A jury, after fewer than three hours of deliberation, concluded that the former president had sexually abused and defamed the writer E. Jean Carroll, though jurors also concluded that her accusation of rape wasn’t proven.

If I were on a jury, I would treat that difference with care, as I am confident you would too.

The various news reports seem to make clear which of those 2 possibilities the jury found, unless you are trying to say that they are misreporting.

The above is an heroic effort to find daylight between the two where I don't think any exists. If the jury found it more likely than not that Trump did not rape (which must have happened since Trump was found to have committed but an assault short of rape), then how it nevertheless found it more likely than not that Trump defamed her by denying he raped it per her testimony on the stand, would be a challenge for even the most talented of "philosophers" to square.

In due time, the court of appeals will help us all work through this.

[Torie]

Thanks for the quote. I was looking myself for the texts of what Trump said. The problem for me is that the plaintiff said on the stand her stress came from trump denying that he raped her, not that he never met her, never assaulted her, etc. My take is that the jury badly wanted to bag Trump despite the fact that they did not believe that he raped her by the preponderance of the evidence.

How that plays out upstairs remains to be seen. It is not my specialty.