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

[Slim Cognito]

How about moving him into another room with a video feed?

[Dave from down under]

How about moving him into another room with a video feed?

Cuffs, gag and shock collar.

[pipistrelle]

Thanks VERY much for the verbatim play-by-play RealityCheck. In the portion of cross you quoted in post #876 Habba was trying to establish that Ms. Carroll enjoyed and welcomed sexual assault. At least that is what I think she was trying to do. An obnoxious strategy to be sure but do she and her client realize that the line of questioning assumes that sexual assault did in fact occur? Ms. Habba made herself look like a jerk in front of the jury all day long but she probably does not care that she is a laughingstock in the legal community forever.

From skimming slightly, I got the impression Habba is trying to show Carroll isn't a prude (so?), she has income and influential friends (e.g., Vanity Fair), and she's old (80). So apparently she shouldn't get any money.

[Kendra]

Thanks RC from me also!

[bob]

From skimming slightly, I got the impression Habba is trying to show Carroll isn't a prude (so?), she has income and influential friends (e.g., Vanity Fair), and she's old (80). So apparently she shouldn't get any money.

I read it as she trying to mitigate damages. "You got famous from your allegations and are more popular than ever, and you're gonna die soon anyway, so you don't need millions."

[pipistrelle]

From skimming slightly, I got the impression Habba is trying to show Carroll isn't a prude (so?), she has income and influential friends (e.g., Vanity Fair), and she's old (80). So apparently she shouldn't get any money.

I read it as she trying to mitigate damages. "You got famous from your allegations and are more popular than ever, and you're gonna die soon anyway, so you don't need millions."

Exactly.

[Rolodex]

How about moving him into another room with a video feed?

Like that nut that ran down all those people in the Christmas parade. It was so satisfying seeing the judge boot him and then mute his audio. LOL

[p0rtia]

Crazy trial.

[Maybenaut]

Just catching up on this thread, but this caught my eye:

Habba: Ms. Carroll, have you spoken to your counsel about your testimony since yesterday?
Carroll: No.

What a dumb thing to attempt to impeach on. I don’t know what the rules are in federal court in New York, but where I practice(d) you can’t talk to your client about their testimony during breaks in their testimony. I assume that’s universally true. So of course the answer is going to be no. It makes Habba look like she’s fishing with an empty hook, which makes her look sort of desperate.

I’m not even sure Habba had a good faith basis for asking the question, but plaintiff’s counsel didn’t object, maybe because it just made Habba look stupid.

[p0rtia]

As a trial watcher, I’ve heard that so often (“Did you speak with your attorney since yesterday/this morning”) that I thought it was standard. The context seems to be to catch the witness being coached.

[Maybenaut]

As a trial watcher, I’ve heard that so often (“Did you speak with your attorney since yesterday/this morning”) that I thought it was standard. The context seems to be to catch the witness being coached.

That is what she’s trying to do, but it never works. That’s why it’s dumb.

And even if Carrol had said yes, Habba would have (if she was smart), just shut up and argued to the jury she was coached. But in any case, Carrol’s attorney would have followed up by asking what they talked about and Carrol would have said something along the lines of, “You were just encouraging me to continue to tell the truth.” And Carrol’s attorney would have elicited from Carrol that he never told her what to say and she should not say anything other than the truth.

Again, that’s why it’s dumb - it provides Carrol’s attorney with an opportunity to bolster his client’s credibility.

Also, too, there’s an art to successful impeachment. It does your case no good at all to catch the witness in minor inconsistencies if you can’t deliver the big ones. The jury just sees all that spaghetti sliding down the walls.

[Reality Check]

From skimming slightly, I got the impression Habba is trying to show Carroll isn't a prude (so?), she has income and influential friends (e.g., Vanity Fair), and she's old (80). So apparently she shouldn't get any money.

Good catch on the question about EJC's age. I was wondering where Habba was going with that. All in all Habba's questioning was pretty despicable.

Praphrased: "Hey, you may have been raped but it made you famous and you wrote a book, published articles and got on TV all because of the Donald. Now you are as old as dirt so why does your reputation matter?"

[Rolodex]

Most of the jury is men, but I hope at least one of the few women are older. I think they'll get this and they'll speak up.

[much ado]

This is a suit between two old people. Why does her age matter more than his?

[Rolodex]

Habba filed a motion to dismiss. And other stuff.

[pipistrelle]

Don’t you move for a mistrial, not via letter?

[Slim Cognito]

We should be impressed she didn't request it via Pravda Social.

[Suranis]

Don’t you move for a mistrial, not via letter?

You can have someone else write a letter, but you cant have someone else talk for you to move a motion in a Courtroom.

[Flatpoint High]

Don’t you move for a mistrial, not via letter?

You can have someone else write a letter, but you cant have someone else talk for you to move a motion in a Courtroom.

Donie Dookiepants is such a Mook.

mook
noun
ˈmük
slang
: a foolish, insignificant, or contemptible person

however, if you're a Stephanie Miller fan, this is a compliment

[andersweinstein]

I often find youtube lawyer Bruce Rivers ("he's the criminal laywer") engaging. Folks might enjoy his commentary on "Habba Habba Habba":

[RTH10260]

Habba filed a motion to dismiss. And other stuff.

https://twitter.com/big_cases/status/17 ... 77361?s=20

Big Cases Bot@big_cases
New filing: "Carroll v. Trump I"
Doc #271: LETTER addressed to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan from Alina Habba dated January 19, 2024 re: Letter Requesting a Declaration of a Mistrial and other Alternative Relief.…

[full entry below ]

PDF: https://courtlistener.com/docket/184182 ... modal=True

#CL18418220
8:37 PM · Jan 19, 2024

One of the points Habba raises is that Carroll deleted emails received that contained death threats. She claims that is tampering with evidence. (was part of the crossexamination)

My question of course is, did team T formally request that evidence be preserved? And did Habba determine thatt the deletions were made after this court case started, or was Carroll refering to older emails. Anyhow, how would they be relevant, it wasn't tfg who sent them, but crazy mmaggats.

[Maybenaut]

Habba filed a motion to dismiss. And other stuff.

https://twitter.com/big_cases/status/17 ... 77361?s=20

Big Cases Bot@big_cases
New filing: "Carroll v. Trump I"
Doc #271: LETTER addressed to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan from Alina Habba dated January 19, 2024 re: Letter Requesting a Declaration of a Mistrial and other Alternative Relief.…

[full entry below ]

PDF: https://courtlistener.com/docket/184182 ... modal=True

#CL18418220
8:37 PM · Jan 19, 2024

One of the points Habba raises is that Carroll deleted emails received that contained death threats. She claims that is tampering with evidence. (was part of the crossexamination)

My question of course is, did team T formally request that evidence be preserved? And did Habba determine thatt the deletions were made after this court case started, or was Carroll refering to older emails. Anyhow, how would they be relevant, it wasn't tfg who sent them, but crazy mmaggats.

I think the relevance is that Trump talked so much trash about her that people wanted her dead. But it’s a double-edged sword. Why didn’t she save them when they could prove her case.

[Foggy]

Who saves death threats?

[RTH10260]

above letter by Habba discussed by Ben Meiselas, shows the letter in somewhat readable quality

► Show Spoiler

note: contains an imbedded sponsor message, skip it

[much ado]

I think the relevance is that Trump talked so much trash about her that people wanted her dead. But it’s a double-edged sword. Why didn’t she save them when they could prove her case.

I'm sure that she has scores of recent ones that she has not deleted.

Exactly how many does she need to prove that she got many death threats?