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

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

All of the Republicans currently expressing concern will support Donald Trump in the end. Every horrible thing he's accused of ultimately gets incorporated into their perception of what "Real America" is, and sexual abuse liability will be no exception.

Yeah in the general if he gets to that point

[SteveRogers]

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.

[GeorgiaModerate]

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.

Nine jurors, actually.  Civil trial juries are typically smaller than twelve.

[GeorgiaModerate]

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.

"The jury found that..." nicely conveys what happened without getting into the legal weeds.  I think we should all use that wording to avoid unnecessary derailments.

[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?

[emailking]

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.

Nine jurors, actually.  Civil trial juries are typically smaller than twelve.

Correct. Apologies on the misinfo.

[emailking]

Trump's taking it well.

I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO THIS WOMAN IS. THIS VERDICT IS A DISGRACE - A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME

VERY UNFAIR TRIAL!

WHAT ELSE CAN YOU EXPECT FROM A TRUMP HATING, CLINTON APPOINTED JUDGE, WHO WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RESULT WAS AS NEGATIVE AS IT COULD POSSIBLY BE, SPEAKING TO, AND IN CONTROL OF, A JURY FROM AN ANTI-TRUMP AREA WHICH IS PROBABLY THE WORST PLACE IN THE U.S. FOR ME TO GET A FAIR “TRIAL.”

Note that one juror is MAGA apparently.

[soundchaser]

Trump's taking it well.

I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO THIS WOMAN IS. THIS VERDICT IS A DISGRACE - A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME

VERY UNFAIR TRIAL!

WHAT ELSE CAN YOU EXPECT FROM A TRUMP HATING, CLINTON APPOINTED JUDGE, WHO WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RESULT WAS AS NEGATIVE AS IT COULD POSSIBLY BE, SPEAKING TO, AND IN CONTROL OF, A JURY FROM AN ANTI-TRUMP AREA WHICH IS PROBABLY THE WORST PLACE IN THE U.S. FOR ME TO GET A FAIR “TRIAL.”

Note that one juror is MAGA apparently.

As a point of pedantry, the greatest witch hunt of all time probably involved, y’know, witches.

[Meclazine for Israel]

As a result of these legal findings, can Trump be called a 'rapist' or a 'sexual abuser' of women?

[emailking]

Maybe not a rapist since they didn't find him liable for that. Although I think he probably raped her, she just wasn't sure how fully she was penetrated so I guess that's what gave the jurors pause on that finding.

[Beet]

Oh yes, he's a rapist... I believe the anonymous woman from 2016 as well as Carroll.

[South Dakota Democrat]

at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that this statement is true: Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse.

I mean, the statement isn't really true though.  Guilty would mean he was found guilty of a crime.  This was a civil trial.  It is correct to say he was found liable, not that he's guilty.

[Hermit For Peace]

And this is just the beginning of his ordeal, with many other lawsuits and investigations coming up. Time to pay the piper Mr. Trump.

And this man wants to be our president again. Pfft

[Badger]

Oh yes, he's a rapist... I believe the anonymous woman from 2016 as well as Carroll.

Plus the approximately 20 other women who have come forward with similar allegations. Again, Republicans want a serial rapist as president

[Yoda]

What ever happened with the dress she had that she claimed had his semen on it? Wasn't trump supposed to provide a DNA sample? This seems pretty important now since the jury (understandably) said they couldn't find him guilty of rape.

Also, is he still going with this asinine "I don't even know her" line? Really?

[emailking]

She has the dress but they didn't find semen on it.

[Sir Mohamed]

It's unfortunate this was just a civil case, so Mr. Trump wasn't "found guilty" criminally since the incident happened too long ago. Still important to make clear nobody is above the law.

The political impact is little or non-existent. This just reinforces what ever belief each side had. For liberals, progressives and most centrists and former/Never Trumpers it's just further proof what a depraved individual the orange buffoon is. Everyone who still worships him won't abandon the cult and just regard this is another piece of a giant witch hunt that aims to keep him out of power. That's unlikely to change, even with to other legal issues going on. One things is certain: It's not going to get better, especially with January 6 investigation and a potential indictment in Fulton County.

[LBJer]

at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that this statement is true: Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse.

I mean, the statement isn't really true though.  Guilty would mean he was found guilty of a crime.  This was a civil trial.  It is correct to say he was found liable, not that he's guilty.

But in this case, being "liable" means the jury concluded that more likely than not, Trump is guilty of committing a crime.  The differences between this and a criminal trial are that the standard of proof is lower, he faces no criminal penalties, and the jury's finding isn't officially called "guilty."  But to someone who doesn't know civil law, it's misleading to say that "...he was found liable, not that he's guilty" because there are other situations where individuals or entities are not considered, by any standard of proof, to have themselves committed the wrong but are nevertheless held liable (for example, companies for the actions of individuals who work for them).  That's not the case here.  

If we're going to have this sort of debate, we should acknowledge that words often have multiple meanings and that a legal definition, when it exists, is not the only one that carries weight.  If a guy lives alone but has a girlfriend, is he single?  Legally speaking, yes.  The relationship has no legal recognition, he checks the "single" box when he does his tax returns, etc.  But is he single in the way the word is used in ordinary, everyday speech?  Definitely not.  If he has sex with another woman and his girlfriend finds out, he'll hardly be able to persuade her to stop being angry with him by saying that legally he's single

[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.

[SteveRogers]

at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that this statement is true: Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse.

I mean, the statement isn't really true though.  Guilty would mean he was found guilty of a crime.  This was a civil trial.  It is correct to say he was found liable, not that he's guilty.

But in this case, being "liable" means the jury concluded that more likely than not, Trump is guilty of committing a crime.  The differences between this and a criminal trial are that the standard of proof is lower, he faces no criminal penalties, and the jury's finding isn't officially called "guilty."  But to someone who doesn't know civil law, it's misleading to say that "...he was found liable, not that he's guilty" because there are other situations where individuals or entities are not considered, by any standard of proof, to have themselves committed the wrong but are nevertheless held liable (for example, companies for the actions of individuals who work for them).  That's not the case here.  

If we're going to have this sort of debate, we should acknowledge that words often have multiple meanings and that a legal definition, when it exists, is not the only one that carries weight.  If a guy lives alone but has a girlfriend, is he single?  Legally speaking, yes.  The relationship has no legal recognition, he checks the "single" box when he does his tax returns, etc.  But is he single in the way the word is used in ordinary, everyday speech?  Definitely not.  If he has sex with another woman and his girlfriend finds out, he'll hardly be able to persuade her to stop being angry with him by saying that legally he's single

The problem is that if our talking point becomes “Trump found guilty” or “Trump is a convicted sex offender,” his supporters will annoyingly but correctly point out the inaccuracies in those headlines and whine that the media is lying about him and treating him so unfairly blah blah blah. So why even give them the ammunition? Why even allow them the obvious retort instead of just saying “the jury found that he sexually abused Carroll”?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that this statement is true: Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse.

I mean, the statement isn't really true though.  Guilty would mean he was found guilty of a crime.  This was a civil trial.  It is correct to say he was found liable, not that he's guilty.

But in this case, being "liable" means the jury concluded that more likely than not, Trump is guilty of committing a crime.  The differences between this and a criminal trial are that the standard of proof is lower, he faces no criminal penalties, and the jury's finding isn't officially called "guilty."  But to someone who doesn't know civil law, it's misleading to say that "...he was found liable, not that he's guilty" because there are other situations where individuals or entities are not considered, by any standard of proof, to have themselves committed the wrong but are nevertheless held liable (for example, companies for the actions of individuals who work for them).  That's not the case here.  

If we're going to have this sort of debate, we should acknowledge that words often have multiple meanings and that a legal definition, when it exists, is not the only one that carries weight.  If a guy lives alone but has a girlfriend, is he single?  Legally speaking, yes.  The relationship has no legal recognition, he checks the "single" box when he does his tax returns, etc.  But is he single in the way the word is used in ordinary, everyday speech?  Definitely not.  If he has sex with another woman and his girlfriend finds out, he'll hardly be able to persuade her to stop being angry with him by saying that legally he's single

I guess you could say “the jury believed Trump was guilty of sexual abuse”, because believed isn’t legal terminology.  But you can’t say “the jury found Trump guilty”, because even if “guilty” has a casual meaning beyond the legal frame work, “the jury found” does not.  You would never say “the jury found” outside of decribing a jury’s verdict.  And in this case the jury’s verdict was not that Trump was “guilty” of anything.  

[LBJer]

at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that this statement is true: Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse.

I mean, the statement isn't really true though.  Guilty would mean he was found guilty of a crime.  This was a civil trial.  It is correct to say he was found liable, not that he's guilty.

But in this case, being "liable" means the jury concluded that more likely than not, Trump is guilty of committing a crime.  The differences between this and a criminal trial are that the standard of proof is lower, he faces no criminal penalties, and the jury's finding isn't officially called "guilty."  But to someone who doesn't know civil law, it's misleading to say that "...he was found liable, not that he's guilty" because there are other situations where individuals or entities are not considered, by any standard of proof, to have themselves committed the wrong but are nevertheless held liable (for example, companies for the actions of individuals who work for them).  That's not the case here.  

If we're going to have this sort of debate, we should acknowledge that words often have multiple meanings and that a legal definition, when it exists, is not the only one that carries weight.  If a guy lives alone but has a girlfriend, is he single?  Legally speaking, yes.  The relationship has no legal recognition, he checks the "single" box when he does his tax returns, etc.  But is he single in the way the word is used in ordinary, everyday speech?  Definitely not.  If he has sex with another woman and his girlfriend finds out, he'll hardly be able to persuade her to stop being angry with him by saying that legally he's single

The problem is that if our talking point becomes “Trump found guilty” or “Trump is a convicted sex offender,” his supporters will annoyingly but correctly point out the inaccuracies in those headlines and whine that the media is lying about him and treating him so unfairly blah blah blah. So why even give them the ammunition? Why even allow them the obvious retort instead of just saying “the jury found that he sexually abused Carroll”?

My post was in response to the claim that he was found liable, not guilty.  It doesn't mean that anyone is obligated to use the word guilty if they don't want to.  

[LBJer]

at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that this statement is true: Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse.

I mean, the statement isn't really true though.  Guilty would mean he was found guilty of a crime.  This was a civil trial.  It is correct to say he was found liable, not that he's guilty.

But in this case, being "liable" means the jury concluded that more likely than not, Trump is guilty of committing a crime.  The differences between this and a criminal trial are that the standard of proof is lower, he faces no criminal penalties, and the jury's finding isn't officially called "guilty."  But to someone who doesn't know civil law, it's misleading to say that "...he was found liable, not that he's guilty" because there are other situations where individuals or entities are not considered, by any standard of proof, to have themselves committed the wrong but are nevertheless held liable (for example, companies for the actions of individuals who work for them).  That's not the case here.  

If we're going to have this sort of debate, we should acknowledge that words often have multiple meanings and that a legal definition, when it exists, is not the only one that carries weight.  If a guy lives alone but has a girlfriend, is he single?  Legally speaking, yes.  The relationship has no legal recognition, he checks the "single" box when he does his tax returns, etc.  But is he single in the way the word is used in ordinary, everyday speech?  Definitely not.  If he has sex with another woman and his girlfriend finds out, he'll hardly be able to persuade her to stop being angry with him by saying that legally he's single

I guess you could say “the jury believed Trump was guilty of sexual abuse”, because believed isn’t legal terminology.  But you can’t say “the jury found Trump guilty”, because even if “guilty” has a casual meaning beyond the legal frame work, “the jury found” does not.  You would never say “the jury found” outside of decribing a jury’s verdict.  And in this case the jury’s verdict was not that Trump was “guilty” of anything.  

But the word "found" is used in non-legal ways as well: "I found his behavior reprehensible."

[Xing]

I bet this time for sure Republicans will aband-

I can't even finish that sentence, we all know what's going to happen.

[emailking]

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.