Page 40 of 59
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 8:46 am
by RTH10260
I do not have the reference but Roberta Kaplan also too submitted a motion to include into evidence all (most?) of the verbal abuse that the former guy made over the last week, including his un-Truth social media postings.
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 9:14 am
by Reality Check
RTH10260 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 8:46 am
I do not have the reference but Roberta Kaplan also too submitted a motion to include into evidence all (most?) of the verbal abuse that the former guy made over the last week, including his un-Truth social media postings.
raison de arizona previously posted it.
viewtopic.php?t=1094&start=950#p241138
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 9:28 am
by RTH10260
fast moving thread, did not remember that one anymore
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 9:30 am
by Reality Check
RTH10260 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 9:28 am
fast moving thread, did not remember that one anymore
Yes, busy weekend!
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 10:05 am
by Maybenaut
I read Roberta Kaplan’s response to the mistrial motion, and I think there’s a logical flaw in her argument against an adverse inference instruction.
Roberta Kaplan wrote: Finally, the deleted emails are in no way helpful to the defense. Apart from questions concerning the so-called “gap” on June 21, 2019 (during which period Ms. Carroll had no legal duty to preserve the messages she received), evidence of death threats is helpful to Ms. Carroll, not Mr. Trump. If threats existed after that point in time and were deleted, those threats would have simply added to Ms. Carroll’s extensive evidence of harm, and the substance of an adverse instruction would make no sense. See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 219-20(S.D.N.Y. 2003) (adverse instruction tells jury that they may “infer that the party who destroyed potentially relevant evidence did so ‘out of a realization that the [evidence was] unfavorable’”). In other words, Ms. Carroll did not stand to gain by deleting threats that she received, and there is no reason to believe that an adverse instruction would be warranted to address her conduct.
But this argument presumes that the messages were, in fact, threats. What the defense wants is an instruction telling the jury that because she deleted the emails, they can infer that the messages did not contain threats.
Kaplan is calling them “threats.” What they really are are emails, that may or may not have contained threats. So the specific argument that they would only have been helpful to Carroll is flawed, IMO.
I’m not saying the defense should get its instruction. As Carroll pointed out, there was no duty to retain the emails at the time she deleted them. I
just think this particular argument is logically flawed.
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 10:25 am
by Reality Check
Juror #3 called in sick so no testimony today.
Inner City Press
@innercitypress
Jury entering!
Judge Kaplan: Juror 3 reported that he was ill. Rather than risk him coming together and having contact with you, we sent him home. He will COVID test today and report - we will not take testimony today. 1 or 2 of the lawyers are negative after test
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 10:26 am
by p0rtia
I've been trying to work through the above issue as well. Thanks for laying that out.
Question: If the emails did not contain threats, are they evidence? Would Carroll have been obliged to keep messages that were not threats in "anticipation of litigation?"
Just an academic exercise at this point, as you say. Though I do think the conclusion that because she deleted the msgs, they did not contain threats, does not hold water on this earth.
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 10:32 am
by Reality Check
Habba moved for again for a mistrial of course. LOL
Jury entering!
Judge Kaplan: Juror 3 reported that he was ill. Rather than risk him coming together and having contact with you, we sent him home. He will COVID test today and report - we will not take testimony today. 1 or 2 of the lawyers are negative after test
Judge Kaplan: Andy will tell you how to report if you have symptoms, and a number to call to find out if we are going to proceed tomorrow or not. This Court continued right through COVID, so I'm sure we'll get through this. Thank you, your transportation is coming
Jury leaves.
Judge Kaplan: Defense made a motion for mistrial, again. That motion is going to be denied in all respects.
Habba: The NH primary is tomorrow. My client would have to testify tomorrow.
Carroll's lawyer: We want to finish tomorrow.
Judge Kaplan: Circumstances may result in you getting what you want. Or perhaps not.
Trump's 2d lawyer Madaio: We'd like to make a Daubert motion about Professor Humphreys testimony
Judge Kaplan: The time to do so was before she testified.
Judge Kaplan: I'm not saying I'll view it as timely, but you could file a written motion.
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 10:49 am
by Reality Check
Trump's 2d lawyer Madaio: We'd like to make a Daubert motion about Professor Humphreys testimony
Judge Kaplan: The time to do so was before she testified.
Judge Kaplan: I'm not saying I'll view it as timely, but you could file a written motion.
They just continue to embarrass themselves. Judge Kaplan: "Yeah, knock yourself out. Go ahead and file a written motion and I will deny that too."
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 11:20 am
by Rolodex
So...Daubert motion:
The “Daubert Standard” provides a systematic framework for a trial court judge to assess the reliability and relevance of expert witness testimony before it is presented to a jury. Established in the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), this standard transformed the landscape of expert testimony by placing the responsibility on trial judges to act as "gatekeepers" of scientific evidence.
The Daubert case introduced a more comprehensive approach that requires judges to scrutinize not only the expert's methodology but also the underlying scientific principles. This shift aimed to curtail the admission of pseudoscientific or unreliable expert testimony. Judges are required to assess the methodology and reasoning behind an expert's opinions, rather than simply relying on the expert's credentials or reputation.
Under the Daubert Standard, the trial court considers the following factors to determine whether the expert’s methodology is valid:
Whether the technique or theory in question can be, and has been tested;
Whether it has been subjected to publication and peer review;
Its known or potential error rate;
The existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and
Whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 11:25 am
by Reality Check
This Tweet said Habba was not feeling well and requested the adjournment. Of course the nut job Stefanik blamed Biden.
Adam Klasfeld reposted
Paula Reid
@PaulaReidCNN
·
20m
What? The judge gave lawyers the option to continue with just eight jurors, after one went home sick, but Trump lawyer said she wanted an adjournment for the day. The Trump team had a choice and chose not to proceed today.
Quote
Elise Stefanik
@EliseStefanik
·
50m
This is blatant election interference!
Joe Biden and his Democrat cronies are the true threats to democracy!
TRUMP 2024! twitter.com/_johnnymaga/st…
Edit: I think Paul Reid was mistaken . I read another report that said Habba only said she had potentially been exposed to COVID through her parents. Judge Kaplan never proposed continuing with only 8 jurors.
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 11:26 am
by Rolodex
So, I wonder if defense attorneys' use this Daubert much.
I'm a true crime fan, and recently there has been much information debunking "scientific" evidence, such as bite marks, etc - they have apparently been found to actually not be accurate, scientifically. Prosecutions like to have this "CSI"-type stuff so they look like they have a lot of forensic evidence, but it seems to not be as accurate as they claim.
Daubert seems to require a lot of a judge - they would normally have to no way to understand the validity of scientific procedure/result/reliability. What a murky world.
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 11:57 am
by W. Kevin Vicklund
Both sides use it all the time. In very basic terms, each expert witness proffered is supposed to write a report before trial explaining what they are going to testify on, and this report is supposed to include a discussion on how they meet the Daubert standards. Opposition attorneys can then file a Daubert motion to attempt to disqualify the witness as an expert if they have reason to believe the standards are not met. If the motion is granted, the witness is not allowed to testify as an expert on all or part of the topic, as decided by the judge. (They might still be allowed to testify as a fact witness).
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 12:24 pm
by Rolodex
W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 11:57 am
Both sides use it all the time. In very basic terms, each expert witness proffered is supposed to write a report before trial explaining what they are going to testify on, and this report is supposed to include a discussion on how they meet the
Daubert standards. Opposition attorneys can then file a
Daubert motion to attempt to disqualify the witness as an expert if they have reason to believe the standards are not met. If the motion is granted, the witness is not allowed to testify as an expert on all or part of the topic, as decided by the judge. (They might still be allowed to testify as a fact witness).
Oh! thanks! This makes much better sense than Dr IGetPaidForThis just showing up and the judge has to discern the worthiness.
Regardless, I think Kaplan has signaled that he'll deny it. He said it was too late (supposed to be filed before the expert testified) - and it even says that very thing in the Cornell Law article I posted.
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 12:27 pm
by tek
It clearly doesn't make sense after the jury has heard the witness..
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 12:52 pm
by Slim Cognito
To you, sure! But to the MAGAts, it’s more evidence of Trump being unfairly prosecuted.
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 1:33 pm
by RTH10260
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
now the yellow menace has a reason to withhold payments to his defense time for not being the bestest lawyers and missing a crucial step
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 1:34 pm
by Dr. Ken
And he's once again on a tantrum smearing E. Jean.
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 1:40 pm
by RTH10260
I guess we will see another motion to take evidence ...
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 2:06 pm
by Maybenaut
p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 10:26 am
I've been trying to work through the above issue as well. Thanks for laying that out.
Question: If the emails did not contain threats, are they evidence? Would Carroll have been obliged to keep messages that were not threats in "anticipation of litigation?"
Just an academic exercise at this point, as you say. Though I do think the conclusion that because she deleted the msgs, they did not contain threats, does not hold water on this earth.
They’d only be evidence if they were relevant, but they wouldn’t necessarily have to be threats. I can imagine non-threatening emails that are relevant to damage to her reputation. But she described them as threats, so that’s what we’re talking about.
You only have to keep things in anticipation of litigation if you actually anticipate litigation. I don’t think either side handled this issue very well. The plaintiff’s counsel could have done a better job of eliciting that Carroll originally deleted the threatening emails because they upset her, or whatever, but when they kept coming, that’s when she decided to sue and started keeping them. That seems like a fairly simple narrative that both sides have made overly complicated.
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 2:57 pm
by W. Kevin Vicklund
More on the
Daubert motion: Feb 16 of last year seems to have been the deadline for making motions
in limine, which include
Daubert motions. Defendants failed to do so for the expert witness in question, but plaintiffs did file a motion to disallow the expert rebuttal witness's testimony. That motion was ultimately successful, in part because the rebuttal witness hadn't even read the expert report he was supposed to be rebutting!
![rotflmao :rotflmao:](./images/smilies/rotflmao.gif)
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 3:08 pm
by Rolodex
W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 2:57 pm
More on the
Daubert motion: Feb 16 of last year seems to have been the deadline for making motions
in limine, which include
Daubert motions. Defendants failed to do so for the expert witness in question, but plaintiffs did file a motion to disallow the expert rebuttal witness's testimony. That motion was ultimately successful, in part because the rebuttal witness hadn't even read the expert report he was supposed to be rebutting!
Crack team of lawyers there, Donnie!
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 4:52 pm
by MN-Skeptic
Ben Feuerherd
@benfeuerherd
NEW: Trump defamation trial off tomorrow.
"Please be advised that trial in the above action is adjourned until Wednesday, January 24, 2024, at 9:30AM," court spokesperson says
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 5:26 pm
by p0rtia
Maybenaut wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 2:06 pm
p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 10:26 am
I've been trying to work through the above issue as well. Thanks for laying that out.
Question: If the emails did not contain threats, are they evidence? Would Carroll have been obliged to keep messages that were not threats in "anticipation of litigation?"
Just an academic exercise at this point, as you say. Though I do think the conclusion that because she deleted the msgs, they did not contain threats, does not hold water on this earth.
They’d only be evidence if they were relevant, but they wouldn’t necessarily have to be threats. I can imagine non-threatening emails that are relevant to damage to her reputation. But she described them as threats, so that’s what we’re talking about.
You only have to keep things in anticipation of litigation if you actually anticipate litigation. I don’t think either side handled this issue very well. The plaintiff’s counsel could have done a better job of eliciting that Carroll originally deleted the threatening emails because they upset her, or whatever, but when they kept coming, that’s when she decided to sue and started keeping them. That seems like a fairly simple narrative that both sides have made overly complicated.
I guess I was wondering how La Habba can claim that Carroll was guilty of failing to preserve evidence and at the same time claim that the there were no emailed death threats. Because if there were no emailed death threats, there was nothing to preserve. One or the other, not both.
Habba: Do you control your email?
Carroll: Yes.
Habba: So only you deleted them?
Carroll: Yes.
Habba: Ms. Carroll, are you aware it is illegal to delete evidence?
Carroll's lawyer: Objection
Habba: I move for a mistrial, evidence has been deleted
Judge Kaplan: Denied and the jury will disregard everything Ms. Habba just said
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 5:40 pm
by noblepa
p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 5:26 pm
Judge Kaplan: Denied and the jury will disregard everything Ms. Habba just said
Can anyone comment on whether such statements by the judge and the sheer number of times that he has overruled her objections and scolded her for her seeming lack of understanding of how a federal court works, will help or hurt her case in the eyes of the jury.
IOW, is the jury likely to say to themselves "she has no idea what she is doing and is grasping at legal straws to defend an indefensible position", or "the judge is being unfair to her by not allowing her to present the case she wants".
I know that, if the jury is filled with MAGAs, their reaction will be the latter. If they are all liberal Democrats, the former.
I also know that predicting how a jury will react is risky. But, in the experiene of the IAALs here, is such poor performance by an attorney likely to affect how a jury sees the defendant's case?