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

[John Thomas8]

No.

So that babbling crack monkey performance isn't admissible in court?

[Greatgrey]

There was exculpatory evidence! Why didn’t this get TFG off?

And who knew TFG had a half brother?

[roadscholar]

MAGA Marinated in Meth.

[Foggy]

Will his disgusting performance last night be a factor in the appeal?

No.

No, but she can always file a new lawsuit.

[chancery]

What Trump said yesterday has nothing to do with the action just concluded, which is a suit for monetary damages up to the time of trial (or possibly an earlier cut-off). The record for that proceeding is closed. Carroll didn't request a court order restricting Trump's future speech, and obtaining such an order would involve serious difficulties under the First Amendment.

Accordingly what Trump said yesterday didn't violate any court order. And since the trial is over, it couldn't be punished as conduct tending to obstruct a judicial proceeding.

Yesterday's statements would be relevant only if Carroll filed a new lawsuit against Trump for yesterday's defamation. I'm skeptical that this would be a good idea.

To be sure, collateral estoppel would bar Trump from relitigating the issue of whether sexual assault occurred. (Collateral estoppel would also bar Carroll from relitigating whether the assault constituted rape.) So establishing defamation would be much easier than the first time.

But the damages recoverable would only be new damages due solely to yesterday's conduct. It might not be easy to identify new damages that aren't duplicative of the damages already adjudicated, and even harder to quantify them. Trump's lawyers could argue that, as a result of Tuesday's verdict, few reasonable people would believe what Trump said yesterday. (Yes it would require some chutzpah, but so what?) So de minimus damages.

As I said, I'm skeptical about a new lawsuit.

[much ado]

As I said, I'm skeptical about a new lawsuit.

So is there no legal mechanism to force the asshole to shut up?

Is he now free to defame her without penalty?

[Foggy]

Yeah, and the really bad thing is, we can't even defame him, because no matter what horrible things we say about him, they're all true.

[Suranis]

Carrolls lawyers are responding to Dopey Don attacking her in his Town Howl on CNN by publicly warning him to shut his stupid mouth, or more legal beatings may commence.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/e-jean-ca ... nn-remarks

E. Jean Carroll Considers New Defamation Suit Against Trump for CNN Remarks

ROUND 2?

Published May. 11, 2023 3:48PM ET


Days after a jury found Donald Trump sexually assaulted journalist E. Jean Carroll—then defamed her by denying it happened—he’s given her cause to drag him back to court. Carroll’s lawyer said Thursday that Trump’s remarks during a bewildering CNN town hall, in which he again denied even knowing who Carroll was, could form the basis of another defamation suit, the New York Times reported. “Everything’s on the table,” she said. Carroll told the Times in an interview that she slept through Trump’s CNN rant, but later read part of the transcript, which she described as “disgusting, vile, foul.” She also said she’s been “insulted by better people.”

[Foggy]

Yabbut, like chancery said, she's got a slam-dunk case for new defamation, and nothing to claim in the way of new damages.

Not even to mention:

The statement that he doesn't know her is true, imho. It's the implication that he only tries to rape women he knows that I question.
The statement that she's a "whack job" is opinion.
I mean, there are probably some serious defamatory things he said, but I just haven't seen them.

[Foggy]

My advice to E. Jean is, write a book. You won't see any of the $5 million any time soon, he's going to appeal it for years. But you could make some serious coin writing about how you and Robbie Kaplan kicked Donald Trump’s ass. And make sure it gets published just before the Republican National Convention next year, for additional kicks.

Honestly, that would be fun and probably cathartic.

You're always better off with a healthy lifestyle than a healthy lawsuit.

[somerset]

Yabbut, like chancery said, she's got a slam-dunk case for new defamation, and nothing to claim in the way of new damages.

Not even to mention:

The statement that he doesn't know her is true, imho. It's the implication that he only tries to rape women he knows that I question.

The only thing that comes to mind is that the punitive damages (those meant as a deterrent) were apparently too low. But this wouldn't be a judge doubling a sanction against O'rly - it would be a jury trial

Writing a book is probably a better idea.

[Kendra]

Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
Roberta Kaplan, the lawyer for E. Jean Carroll, tells
@MSNBC
that Trump's slurs against Carroll at that town hall last week are "definitely actionable."

Kaplan says to expect news on that front "very, very soon", "two to three days, max."

[SuzieC]

OK, I trust whatever Ms. Kaplan wants to do. She has certainly proven herself to be one of the best, most badass feminist lawyers of her generation.

[Kendra]

NEWS—

E. Jean Carroll moves to amend her remaining defamation lawsuit to include Trump’s statements to CNN.
@lawcrimenews

[sterngard friegen]

I am not sanguine. Punitive damages have to be a multiple of actual damages, and in non death cases SCOTUS is trending to one to two times those damages. No matter how awful Trump's comments, no matter how rich he is, Ms. Carroll is still subject to those precedents.

I am sure bob will agree.

[Kendra]

Meanwhile...

He just can’t help himself. Trump now claims E. Jean Carroll made a racist comment about her husband.

[chancery]

I am not sanguine. Punitive damages have to be a multiple of actual damages, and in non death cases SCOTUS is trending to one to two times those damages. No matter how awful Trump's comments, no matter how rich he is, Ms. Carroll is still subject to those precedents.
I am sure bob will agree.

But the damages recoverable would only be new damages due solely to yesterday's conduct. It might not be easy to identify new damages that aren't duplicative of the damages already adjudicated, and even harder to quantify them. Trump's lawyers could argue that, as a result of Tuesday's verdict, few reasonable people would believe what Trump said yesterday. (Yes it would require some chutzpah, but so what?) So de minimus damages.

As I said, I'm skeptical about a new lawsuit.

The comments referring to a maximum limit for punitive damages of 10x compensatory damages are a rough summary of federal constitutional law concerning punitive damages

See State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 425 (2003) ("few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process"). The Court has exceeded this limit (once, I believe), but Stern is correct that a low single digit compensatory/punitive ratio is much more common.

[chancery]

He just can’t help himself. Trump now claims E. Jean Carroll made a racist comment about her husband.

That's a bad take by Filipkowski. IIRC, Carroll mentioned in her book that she had used that term about her husband.

[Kendra]

He just can’t help himself. Trump now claims E. Jean Carroll made a racist comment about her husband.

That's a bad take by Filipkowski. IIRC, Carroll mentioned in her book that she had used that term about her husband.

I'll take your word on that, I was at tfg still pushing back publicly. On the day I believe he has a virtual hearing on the evidence in his criminal trial and why he needs to keep his mouth shut.

[AndyinPA]

We should probably have a poll on how long tfg can keep his mouth shut. It could certainly start in the minutes.

[Kendra]

I'm sure the prosecutors love it

[neonzx]

Meanwhile...
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/sta ... 5001261060

He just can’t help himself. Trump now claims E. Jean Carroll made a racist comment about her husband.

See neon comment uptread suggesting BS posts attributed to tfg. Honestly, he doesn't need help.

[sterngard friegen]

The talking heads on MSNBC (including Katie Phang, the overly-confident lawyer/commentator who once said Michael Avenatti's cross-claim for Stormy Daniels against Trump was a brilliant move¹) are driving me nuts. Collateral estoppel will only apply to the most recent defamation claim, on relevant and identical issues, after the current case is affirmed on appeal.

I asked Chat GPT the question, and here's what he/she/it wrote:

In order for collateral estoppel to apply to an issue, the first case must generally be final, including any appeals. Collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, is a legal doctrine that prevents the relitigation of issues that have already been conclusively determined in a prior case between the same parties or their privies.

For collateral estoppel to apply, the following requirements are typically necessary:

Final Judgment: The judgment in the first case must be final, meaning that all avenues for appeal have been exhausted, and there are no further opportunities for the parties to challenge or modify the decision.²

Identical Issue: The issue in the subsequent case must be identical to the issue that was determined in the prior case. This means that the same legal or factual question must be at stake.

Actual Litigation: The issue must have been actually litigated and decided in the prior case. It should have been a central point of contention and received a judicial determination.

Essential to the Judgment: The determination of the issue must have been essential to the final judgment in the first case. In other words, the decision on that particular issue must have been crucial in reaching the overall outcome of the case.

If these requirements are met, collateral estoppel can be invoked to prevent relitigation of the same issue in a subsequent case. However, it's important to note that the application of collateral estoppel can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific facts and circumstances of the cases involved. Legal advice from a qualified attorney should be sought for specific situations.

[Emphasis added.]

I couldn't have said it any better.
______________________________________________________________
¹ That stupid move cost Stormy Daniels over a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees. Almost as much as Avenatti stole from her.

² Not quite true. There is always the right to a collateral attack, no matter how unlikely. "Finality" means all of the appeals are over and the judgment can't be modified following remittitur.

[chancery]

Stern, with respect,* I believe that both you and Chat GPT are wrong on this issue.

The basis of federal jurisdiction in Carroll II, the trial just concluded, was diversity of citizenship, which means that the preclusive nature of the judgment is determined under the law of the state in which the district court which rendered the judgment sat. Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 508 (2001). And under New York law, "the mere pendency of an appeal does not prevent the use of the challenged judgment as the basis of collaterally estopping a party to that judgment in a second proceeding." Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 85 A.D.2d 727 (2nd Dept. 1981).

It's a superficially counterintuitive rule that surprised me the first time I heard about it, but it's been the law in New York State for decades. It was still good law when I checked it a few years back.

____
* Respect to you, not to the AI bot.

[chancery]

That said ... it's obviously messy to go through a trial in which collateral estoppel based on a prior judgment plays a role, only to have the prior judgment reversed or modified on appeal. When running the risk of having to redo the second trial would be crazy for all concerned, it's usually easy to get the court to agree to stay the the second trial pending the conclusion of appeals with respect to the first judgment. And I think I've heard of arrangements for alternative findings, so you don't need to redo a complex and expensive trial.

Trump's lawyers will likely move for such a stay, and Carroll's lawyers will oppose. Since this defamation case is neither complex nor expensive (relatively speaking), and since New York law gives Carroll the right to accept the risk of going forward before conclusion of appeals in the first trial, I suspect that Judge Kaplan would let the second trial (Carroll I) go forward, particularly because of the findings he has already made about Trump's history of delaying tactics.