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

[Maybenaut]

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?

I don’t disagree - just responding to RTH’s query about the relevance.

This is another example of Habba’s hammering on impeachment that isn’t ultimately going to go anywhere - for the very reason you say. But she has to play the crappy hand she was dealt.

[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?

I don’t disagree - just responding to RTH’s query about the relevance.

This is another example of Habba’s hammering on impeachment that isn’t ultimately going to go anywhere - for the very reason you say. But she has to play the crappy hand she was dealt.

Right.

[bob]

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

Part of her request includes damage to her reputation. So the older she is, the less time she'll have to live with her damaged reputation.

It is mostly an actuarial thing, but Habba seems to be soliciting sympathy points for the plaintiff with her inept questioning.

* * *

Who saves death threats?

I would. To have them in case law enforcement asked for them.

I also would if there was a court order telling me to preserve my messages.

But this is a go-nowhere tactic without a strategy. The best the defense might get a favorable jury instruction, e.g., "There is evidence the plaintiff deleted electronic messages despite being ordered not to do so. As the finders of fact, you may draw an adverse inference about the contents of those electronic messages." (STEP THREE: PROFIT?)

And I'm still confuzzled about a motion via a letter. My WAG is there is a local (or local-local) rule saying mid-trial motions are discouraged, but a record may be made with a written request.

[SuzieC]

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?

I don’t disagree - just responding to RTH’s query about the relevance.

This is another example of Habba’s hammering on impeachment that isn’t ultimately going to go anywhere - for the very reason you say. But she has to play the crappy hand she was dealt.

Please, bitch (meaning Habba). Deletion of death threat against Ms. Carroll is GOOD for your rotten client.

[sugar magnolia]

Did she delete the death threats before or after she actually filed whichever suit they are related to?

[RTH10260]

Did she delete the death threats before or after she actually filed whichever suit they are related to?

IIRC from the MTN clip somewhere above, the transcript of the Q&A mentions that Carroll replied that she "mostly" stopped deleting when the second law suit was filed.

[noblepa]

Did she delete the death threats before or after she actually filed whichever suit they are related to?

I didn't find her testimony clear on that point.

She did say that after she consulted legal counsel, she stopped deleting them.

I can understand her desire to put the offensive emails out of her life and out of mind. To me, it is a perfectly natural thing to do. Then, when she began (at least) discussing the possibility of a lawsuit, she realized that, as disgusting as the emails were, it was important that she keep them.

Someone, somewhere, referred to Ms. Carroll "destroying evidence". It might have been the mango mussilini himself. Anyway, again, this is not a criminal trial. I don't believe that destroying evidence is quite the same crime that it would be in a criminal proceeding. And the "evidence" that she allegedly destroyed was evidence in support of her contention that he had raped and defamed her. Destruction of such evidence only helps tfg's case. Fortunately, she had plenty of other threats.

Question for the IAAL's here: I know that, in a criminal trial, the prosecutor is obligated to preserve and even deliver to the defense any exculpitory evidence that they may have. Is the same true in a civil trial? Is the plaintiff obligated to preserve evidence that may be helpful to the defendant?

[raison de arizona]

Already heard about this, but this is the first time I've seen the video.

“That's Marla, yeah. That's my wife."

Donald Trump confused E. Jean Carroll with ex-wife Marla Maples in a photo he was shown during a deposition. WATCH:

[bob]

Is the plaintiff obligated to preserve evidence that may be helpful to the defendant?

Habba correctly cited the applicable rule, FRCP 37:

Failure to Preserve Electronically Stored Information.

If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court:

(1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or

(2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may:

(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party;
(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or
(C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

Spoilation of evidence in many jurisdictions also is a tort.

Edit: TYPE-O.

[Reality Check]

This is a busy off day. Roberta Kaplan just filed a letter that pointed out that Habba flagrantly misstated the case law in her opening argument and is asking Judge Kaplan to issue a curative jury instruction.

Letter:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .273.0.pdf

Proposed jury instruction:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .273.1.pdf

Proposed Curative Instruction
You may have heard the defense say during opening argument that Ms. Carroll was under
a legal duty to mitigate or minimize the damages (if any) that she suffered because of Mr. Trump’s
defamatory statements. That statement of the law was incorrect. Under controlling law, when a
person engages in defamation, they are responsible for the damages caused by their defamatory
statements, and the law does not impose any duty on the plaintiff to seek to mitigate or minimize
that harm. Regardless, what lawyers say about the law in opening statements is not controlling. I
will instruct you on the law at the end of this case, after the presentation of all the evidence. You
must follow only my instructions on the law, which will include instructions on the law governing
damages. I therefore instruct you not to speculate as to what the elements of the law are at this
point in the trial.

[p0rtia]

Is the plaintiff obligated to preserve evidence that may be helpful to the defendant?

Habba correct cited the applicable rule, FRCP 37:

Failure to Preserve Electronically Stored Information.

If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court:

(1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or

(2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may:

(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party;
(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or
(C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

Spoilation of evidence in many jurisdictions also is a tort.

`
Carroll testified that she stopped deleting death threats (and other nasty communications) around the time of the first trial. Presumably because her attorney told her to.

What a pile of crap.

[raison de arizona]

What's the argument here anyway, that she wasn't getting death threats until the ones she started keeping? That seems...naive. To be kind.

[bob]

What's the argument here anyway, that she wasn't getting death threats until the ones she started keeping?

Very charitably: Yes, and that the plaintiff is a liar (and therefore disregard everything she says).

Again, this is just a shotgun tactic without a strategy.

[AndyinPA]

I thought nothing was ever really deleted on a computer. If it is really that important, couldn't someone go in and find them?

[p0rtia]

I thought nothing was ever really deleted on a computer. If it is really that important, couldn't someone go in and find them?

That would imply that Habba had a point. She's gonna get smacked down. Again.

[AndyinPA]

[Flatpoint High]

I thought nothing was ever really deleted on a computer. If it is really that important, couldn't someone go in and find them?

that's correct - when a file is deleted the "headers" are removed. the file stays until the computer needs the space a file is on, and then it gets overwritten. by now, the deleted emails may be unrecoverable

Correct me if wrong

[MN-Skeptic]

So many people use an email service like gmail. What happens when you delete an email from gmail? It may have been on your computer at one point, but not as a separate file.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

What's the argument here anyway, that she wasn't getting death threats until the ones she started keeping? That seems...naive. To be kind.

The argument (straight from Habba's mouthfingers)is that if she got death threats in the 5 hours before the OSG responded, the death threats she got afterwards can't be attributed to Trump.

[RTH10260]

I thought nothing was ever really deleted on a computer. If it is really that important, couldn't someone go in and find them?

Depending how one sets up the email program only temporary stores a file copy on the computer while reading. The email remains on the server until deleted. Then it is gone forever. One can also set up the email client to keep an archive on the local computer. The loal storage method varies by client software. Deleting the local copy makes it generally unrecoverable, its not just another file in the file system.

[New Turtle]

So many people use an email service like gmail. What happens when you delete an email from gmail? It may have been on your computer at one point, but not as a separate file.

Unless she uses a mail client like outlook and specifically set it to download messages off the server, there wouldn't be a copy on her drive. If she used the web interface, that mail would sit on gmail servers, plus any server in between gmail and the senders, even if she deleted it. But if it's been 3 years, it's practically gone. Practically, because it could exist somewhere, but would require more resources than any party in this case to pursue.

[Dave from down under]

What's the argument here anyway, that she wasn't getting death threats until the ones she started keeping? That seems...naive. To be kind.

The argument (straight from Habba's mouthfingers)is that if she got death threats in the 5 hours before the OSG responded, the death threats she got afterwards can't be attributed to Trump.

During that 5 hours the abuse/threats may still have come from minions and cultists of the orange one. If not also from the former one

[p0rtia]

What's the argument here anyway, that she wasn't getting death threats until the ones she started keeping? That seems...naive. To be kind.

The argument (straight from Habba's mouthfingers)is that if she got death threats in the 5 hours before the OSG responded, the death threats she got afterwards can't be attributed to Trump.

During that 5 hours the abuse/threats may still have come from minions and cultists of the orange one. If not also from the former one

Carroll made this point on the stand. All of the Tweeters in this period followed TFG.

[keith]

Habba's cross examination skills examined: I object!

tfg's defense strategy explained: I can represent my self better than anyone

[Frater I*I]

Again, this is just a shotgun tactic without a strategy.

I disagree...the "strategy" here is that she auditioning to be Attorney General for when Zee Orange Furher retakes the throne...