E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)

[chancery]

Just to close out my thoughts:

I want to acknowledge that, unlike Maybenaut and Foggy, I have no experience with criminal defense.

The kinds of questions Tacopina have been asking seem to me to be legitimately part of a defense lawyer's toolkit, when appropriate.

The cross-examination seems to have been largely ineffective, and may have been self-defeating. Whether a brilliant lawyer could have succeeded in discrediting Ms. Carroll, either by using the same general topics but with a more sensitive touch, or by doing something completely different ... I have no idea.

The successful cross-examination that I mentioned before included some startling questions, but mostly seemed to flow naturally in such a simple straightforward way that it looked easy, although I have always known that it was anything but.

[Maybenaut]

Just to close out my thoughts:

I want to acknowledge that, unlike Maybenaut and Foggy, I have no experience with criminal defense.

The kinds of questions Tacopina have been asking seem to me to be legitimately part of a defense lawyer's toolkit, when appropriate.

The cross-examination seems to have been largely ineffective, and may have been self-defeating. Whether a brilliant lawyer could have succeeded in discrediting Ms. Carroll, either by using the same general topics but with a more sensitive touch, or by doing something completely different ... I have no idea.

The successful cross-examination that I mentioned before included some startling questions, but mostly seemed to flow naturally in such a simple straightforward way that it looked easy, although I have always known that it was anything but.

I have zero experience with civil suits. But the heart of the issue in this case really comes down to whether Trump committed a crime. So I would expect his lawyer to attempt to discredit that claim in the same manner he would in a criminal trial.

But, just as in a criminal trial, it requires a light touch, I would imagine.

[chancery]

Yeah, even though it's a civil case, it made perfect sense to engage a criminal defense attorney to cross-examine the plaintiff.

[Kendra]

@KlasfeldReports
Birnbach is upfront about her dislike for Trump.

Asked if she called Trump "a narcissistic sociopath," Birnbach replies: "That sounds right."

Q: Have you described him as Vladimir Putin's agent?
A: It's quite possible that I did.

Asked if she likened Trump to an "infection like herpes" that you can't get rid of, she says she did.

[sterngard friegen]

Since the trial is not being broadcast, we only know what we know (or think we know) from the media. And a few things that leaked out yesterday were in my view very unfavorable to the plaintiff.

• She was a fan of The Apprentice? Not good, even though she explained she had friends on the show and she never watched a firing.
  
  She asked her readers if they would have sex with Trump for $17,000? Why is she so breezy about sex with her rapist?
  
  She bought a few things (or a lot of things) at Bergdoff Goodman years after the attack. Ugh; the victim returns to the scene of the crime -- repeatedly.

These are not good facts for her and the more 'splainin' she does, the more the jury -- which is made up predominantly of men -- can disbelieve.

I am not sanguine about the result. Do I think she's telling the truth? I don't know. And she has the burden of proof.

We need to prepare ourselves that Teflon Don may skate again. I hope not. I hope Trump's lawyer has thoroughly pissed off the jury (like he has Judge Kaplan). But don't count on it.

[Ben-Prime]

Just to close out my thoughts:

I want to acknowledge that, unlike Maybenaut and Foggy, I have no experience with criminal defense.

The kinds of questions Tacopina have been asking seem to me to be legitimately part of a defense lawyer's toolkit, when appropriate.

The cross-examination seems to have been largely ineffective, and may have been self-defeating. Whether a brilliant lawyer could have succeeded in discrediting Ms. Carroll, either by using the same general topics but with a more sensitive touch, or by doing something completely different ... I have no idea.

The successful cross-examination that I mentioned before included some startling questions, but mostly seemed to flow naturally in such a simple straightforward way that it looked easy, although I have always known that it was anything but.

I have zero experience with civil suits. But the heart of the issue in this case really comes down to whether Trump committed a crime. So I would expect his lawyer to attempt to discredit that claim in the same manner he would in a criminal trial.

But, just as in a criminal trial, it requires a light touch, I would imagine.

Partially agree, but for a specific reason which may be wrong as an assumption on my part. So a question -- do the victim lawsuit things still rely on the preponderance of evidence standard rather than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of a criminal trial? For me, the reason a criminal defense lawyer gets more brutal is precisely because bullying a witness can throw them off on the stand and create a tiny crack. That tiny crack is reasonable doubt in a criminal case, but in a civil case, that tiny crack may not be enough to swing preponderance and makes the attorney look like a rabid wolverine.

[p0rtia]

Not sure this is what you're asking, Ben, but the E. Jean Caroll case is preponderance of the evidence. Must be unanimous.

[p0rtia]

Inner City Press with great detail today:

[Kendra]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
Breaking—

Trump's attorney confirms that he will NOT be testifying at the E. Jean Carroll civil rape trial.

Story soon,
@LawCrimeNews

[Kriselda Gray]

She was a fan of The Apprentice? Not good, even though she explained she had friends on the show and she never watched a firing.

She asked her readers if they would have sex with Trump for $17,000? Why is she so breezy about sex with her rapist?

I agree these two aren't good for her. Granted, the firings that she says she skipped is part of the show that featured trump the most, but I know that once trump started running for office and started showing just how vile he is to the world at large, I can't watch him at all, and he didn't do anything to me *personally*. I can't imagine watching anything he's involved with of making jokes about having sex with him if I'd been his victim.

She bought a few things (or a lot of things) at Bergdoff Goodman years after the attack. Ugh; the victim returns to the scene of the crime -- repeatedly.

This one doesn't seem as bad to me. I have my own experience with rape, but I was attacked in a guy's truck in a park (I'd thought he was a friend...) I could handle going back to the park in the daylight or with a large group - that felt safe, it was a very different situation than the one in which the attack occurred. I could not, however, handle being there at night alone or with a guy - that would trigger the memories too much.

I can understand her not having trouble going back to the store itself, but I would be very surprised if she ever made use of the fitting rooms. I suspect the rest of the store, with open space and lots of people around, likely didn't feel threatening to her, but I would expect the fitting rooms to be a different matter. As I understand it, she said she mainly went to purchase gifts for friends, which in general would be things she wouldn't need to use the fitting room for, as she wasn't trying to buy something for herself that she'd need to try on.

[Kriselda Gray]

Not sure this is what you're asking, Ben, but the E. Jean Caroll case is preponderance of the evidence. Must be unanimous.

I thought I'd heard it didn't need to be unanimous...

[RVInit]

Not sure this is what you're asking, Ben, but the E. Jean Caroll case is preponderance of the evidence. Must be unanimous.

I didn't think it had to be unanimous, I guess I was mistaken. I tried to look it up but didn't find anything about it. Thanks for clarifying.

[p0rtia]

Not sure this is what you're asking, Ben, but the E. Jean Caroll case is preponderance of the evidence. Must be unanimous.

I didn't think it had to be unanimous, I guess I was mistaken. I tried to look it up but didn't find anything about it. Thanks for clarifying.

I didn't think so either, but it's federal court, which, I've been told by the talking heads who report on the case, means unanimous.

[Kriselda Gray]

Not sure this is what you're asking, Ben, but the E. Jean Caroll case is preponderance of the evidence. Must be unanimous.

I didn't think it had to be unanimous, I guess I was mistaken. I tried to look it up but didn't find anything about it. Thanks for clarifying.

I didn't think so either, but it's federal court, which, I've been told by the talking heads who report on the case, means unanimous.

Good to know... Thanks!

[Foggy]

Birnbach, who has written 22 books, also said this morning that E. Jean "is not a victim," because she did a lot of professional work after the attack. She said E. Jean puts on her makeup and goes to work (paraphrasing). At the very least, I suspect we'll hear about that when the subject of damages comes up. It's difficult for me to imagine a woman testifying that another woman who was raped "is not a victim," but

'Course, a jury ruling that Donald Trump raped her is a win, even if they give her $1 in damages. She wants a jury ruling that Donald Trump raped her, and if they give her some money to pay her attorney, that's nice. But I think she would pay her last nickel for a jury ruling that Donald Trump raped her. She can make more money later.

I don't even know is the case bifurcated into liability and damages? Ignorance is bliss, and this case has been making me blissfully ... something.

[bob]

I didn't think so either, but it's federal court, which, I've been told by the talking heads who report on the case, means unanimous.

Correct; FRCP 48(b):

Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the verdict must be unanimous and must be returned by a jury of at least 6 members.

[p0rtia]

I am not sanguine about the result. Do I think she's telling the truth? I don't know. And she has the burden of proof.

We need to prepare ourselves that Teflon Don may skate again. I hope not. I hope Trump's lawyer has thoroughly pissed off the jury (like he has Judge Kaplan). But don't count on it.

Can you define your "I don't know?" There's a lot of space there below the certainty of saying "I know for sure."

For example, I can't say I know for sure that OJ killed Nicole, but I'm pretty sure he did. Much closer to "know for sure" than "could go either way." Beyond a reasonable doubt, if you like.

I'm curious if you go below more likely than not. Cause I value your opinion!

[Foggy]

MN-Skeptic, I think I'm going to suggest you add a poll to the first post in this thread, so we can speculate on the outcome of the case. Lots of us have been thinking it was a slam dunk, but Sterngard has now suggested otherwise (and he's good at this). I still think she's going to win, but to what degree? More than a million dollars?

[SuzieC]

It doesn't matter whether any of us think we know whether she's telling the truth. The members of the jury are the only people who do matter.

[Foggy]

I know, that's why I suggested a poll. It's a damn serious case, imho. I want to see Trump go down for at least one of his godawful sexual attacks. But since we have no influence on the outcome, there's no harm in us speculating as to what the jury will ultimately decide.

[p0rtia]

It doesn't matter whether any of us think we know whether she's telling the truth. The members of the jury are the only people who do matter.

I don't agree with that. I mean, obviously "only the jury's opinion matters" is true in this courtroom at this time, but the long-standing tradition in this country to demonize rape victims and the awareness brought about by the #metoo movement demand an understanding of Caroll's story. For me, the lack of political will to give a shit that men get away with sexual attacks from a pinch to rape and murder has always galled (and I know I'm not alone).

I've always thought that the odds favor some MAGA asshole holding out and hanging this jury in this case. I've found many of Caroll's statements in the past to be (as Sternie says) the sort of thing that trigger the misogynist response to rape victims--an excuse to let the guy off (the he said/she said fallacy). I was pleased to conclude that Caroll was really good on the stand, from what we have read. But am I hanging on this verdict? No.

The question of whether or not the jury will convict (with all due respect to Foggy) is a completely different question to who, hearing what we've heard about the players, thinks that she and her witnesses are lying.

I'm very interested in what folks following the trial think. Cause it matters.

[Phoenix520]

From a juror’s POV how does tfg’s absence play? If I were on the jury I might think he’s arrogant to stay away, like this is no big deal, let the lawyers handle it. I might think that’s exactly the kind of guy who would rape a woman in Bergdorf’s dressing rooms.

[Annrc]

Agreed. Can’t even show up for something this serious? Oh, I’m opening another golf course. Who cares.

[John Thomas8]

Since the trial is not being broadcast, we only know what we know (or think we know) from the media. And a few things that leaked out yesterday were in my view very unfavorable to the plaintiff.

• She was a fan of The Apprentice? Not good, even though she explained she had friends on the show and she never watched a firing.
  
  She asked her readers if they would have sex with Trump for $17,000? Why is she so breezy about sex with her rapist?
  
  She bought a few things (or a lot of things) at Bergdoff Goodman years after the attack. Ugh; the victim returns to the scene of the crime -- repeatedly.

These are not good facts for her and the more 'splainin' she does, the more the jury -- which is made up predominantly of men -- can disbelieve.

I am not sanguine about the result. Do I think she's telling the truth? I don't know. And she has the burden of proof.

We need to prepare ourselves that Teflon Don may skate again. I hope not. I hope Trump's lawyer has thoroughly pissed off the jury (like he has Judge Kaplan). But don't count on it.

The orange shitstain on humanity is gonna walk, again.

[SuzieC]

It doesn't matter whether any of us think we know whether she's telling the truth. The members of the jury are the only people who do matter.

I don't agree with that. I mean, obviously "only the jury's opinion matters" is true in this courtroom at this time, but the long-standing tradition in this country to demonize rape victims and the awareness brought about by the #metoo movement demand an understanding of Caroll's story. For me, the lack of political will to give a shit that men get away with sexual attacks from a pinch to rape and murder has always galled (and I know I'm not alone).

I've always thought that the odds favor some MAGA asshole holding out and hanging this jury in this case. I've found many of Caroll's statements in the past to be (as Sternie says) the sort of thing that trigger the misogynist response to rape victims--an excuse to let the guy off (the he said/she said fallacy). I was pleased to conclude that Caroll was really good on the stand, from what we have read. But am I hanging on this verdict? No.

The question of whether or not the jury will convict (with all due respect to Foggy) is a completely different question to who, hearing what we've heard about the players, thinks that she and her witnesses are lying.

I'm very interested in what folks following the trial think. Cause it matters.

I absolutely agree Portia. Many of Carroll's statements are the sort that misogynists can grab on to to deny that rape occurred. I think they are all normal statements from a woman that would want to go on with her life, especially against a famous man who is much more powerful than her. It is no wonder that she made many statements laughing at, and minimizing the rape. She was afraid of trump. Who wouldn't be.

It is well known that women deny and minimize their rapes. I did. I think we have talked about this before, at the time of the Kavanaugh hearings. As I recall, many of us let it all hang out at that time. It is because we have been made to believe it is our fault, somehow. Because if we came out publicly and talked about it, we would be treated like E. Jean Carroll.