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

[Dave from down under]

Sitting in court will seriously cut down his me time.

[Suranis]

It's raining today in Ireland. Not good golfing weather.

And the local press isn't covering him.

And no fawning politicians are bothering to beg to met him, with tears in their eyes.

[p0rtia]

The article uses "claims" but the headline uses "says." #mediacomplicit

Schedule is: Wrap up case in chief this afternoon. Plainiff rests. Defense rests. No jury Friday as lawyers & judge go over charging doc.

Monday, closings all day. This is your chance fuckhead!

Tuesday, first hour charge the jury, then jury begins deliberation.

[Foggy]

“... I have no idea who she is – it’s ridiculous,” he said.

Actually, Donald, I think probably most of the women you attacked, you had no idea who any of them were. You explained that to Billy Bush, remember?

[Slim Cognito]

But...but...but...trump is rushing home to confront his accuser!!! How's that going to work?

[chancery]

https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/ ... 105580544

Harry Litman
@harrylitman
Trump was out maneuvered from the time of the deposition. If tech Apina had been smarter, they could’ve got some questions in that they would have been able to use now to some mitigation
4:30 AM · May 4, 2023

Patrick Grannan
@magrampip
How ? Any self serving statements from the deposition he wanted to offer would be hearsay and inadmissible if offered by Trump. Carroll can offer them as party admissions (not hearsay). That doesn't work for Trump.

Litman clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, was a federal prosecutor, including United States Attorney for WDPa, and is now a law professor. And his tweets are generally thoughtful.

So what is he talking about here? It doesn't make any sense, for the reasons stated in the reply.

[Maybenaut]

https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/ ... 105580544

Harry Litman
@harrylitman
Trump was out maneuvered from the time of the deposition. If tech Apina had been smarter, they could’ve got some questions in that they would have been able to use now to some mitigation
4:30 AM · May 4, 2023

Patrick Grannan
@magrampip
How ? Any self serving statements from the deposition he wanted to offer would be hearsay and inadmissible if offered by Trump. Carroll can offer them as party admissions (not hearsay). That doesn't work for Trump.

Litman clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, was a federal prosecutor, including United States Attorney for WDPa, and is now a law professor. And his tweets are generally thoughtful.

So what is he talking about here? It doesn't make any sense, for the reasons stated in the reply.

As the deponent, isn’t it true that Trump couldn’t have gotten any questions in? IANACivL, so I don’t know much about depositions. But I was under the impression that only the other side asks questions during the deposition, and the deponent’s lawyer is there to make a record of objections.

So maybe he’s talking about E Jean Carroll’s deposition. That would at least make more sense.

[realist]

As the deponent, isn’t it true that Trump couldn’t have gotten any questions in? IANACivL, so I don’t know much about depositions. But I was under the impression that only the other side asks questions during the deposition, and the deponent’s lawyer is there to make a record of objections.

Actually, any and all sides can ask questions during a deposition. One party will schedule it but then anyone can participate in questioning the deponent.

Purposes are for discovery, or trial use such as testimony at trial, or even for impeachment.

Many times attorneys will even designate the depo for trial testimony, rather than a discovery depo. A witness can't make the trial, for instance or has died in the interum, etc.

[Gregg]

He says “confront”, not “testify”. Looks like he wants to cause a scene.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 78788.html

Trump cutting Ireland trip short to ‘confront’ accuser in New York case

Former US president Donald Trump has said he is cutting his trip to Ireland short so he can return to “confront” his accuser in a New York civil rape case, which he described as a “political attack”.

Mr Trump said he would “probably attend” the hearing as he spoke to reporters while golfing at his resort outside the village of Doonbeg, Co Clare.

His visit to Scotland and Ireland has coincided with the second week of a civil trial in Manhattan over accusations, denied by Mr Trump, that he raped former magazine columnist E Jean Carroll in a department store dressing room in 1996.

Mr Trump said he has been “falsely accused”.

“I’m going back to New York. I was falsely accused by this woman, I have no idea who she is – it’s ridiculous,” he said.

I have a theory that the whole UK trip was because he planned on gate crashing the coronation.
When he didn't find any tickets on Stub Hub he's trying to find an excuse to not be in Britain with no date on prom night.

Just a theory.

[AndyinPA]

He might have wanted to crash the coronation, but I doubt he would have gotten in. He's no longer president; of course, that doesn't matter to him.

[Suranis]

Maybe not crash, but he might have thought he would be invited since he was in the country. Failing that, he would have wanted to suck away some of the media attention that is presently on King Charles in order to prove he is important too. He failed.

Then he went to Ireland to stick it to that fucking ass Biden and show that he would get wall to wall coverage too. Its the usual battle for ratings with him, which he has lost against Biden every time

When The media and politicians ignored him he ran home to look for another excuse to say he is important.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Every petty Lord received a call recently:

"This is the office of Lord {Lackwittywick]"

"Please standby for an important call from President Donald Trump"

"I'm sorry, Lord Lackwittywick is busy, eh, waxing his eyebrows. Please hold while we transfer your call to a voice mail for special individuals."

15 minutes later, the personal aide quietly deletes the now full VM inbox normally used for whackaloons.

[chancery]

As the deponent, isn’t it true that Trump couldn’t have gotten any questions in? IANACivL, so I don’t know much about depositions. But I was under the impression that only the other side asks questions during the deposition, and the deponent’s lawyer is there to make a record of objections.

Actually, any and all sides can ask questions during a deposition. One party will schedule it but then anyone can participate in questioning the deponent.

Purposes are for discovery, or trial use such as testimony at trial, or even for impeachment.

Many times attorneys will even designate the depo for trial testimony, rather than a discovery depo. A witness can't make the trial, for instance or has died in the interum, etc.

Realist is correct. However, except when needed to preserve testimony for trial, it's quite rare for the witness's own counsel to ask questions at the witnesses's deposition. You can't use the testimony at trial (for the reasons stated in the twitter thread above), and it's an accepted rule of thumb that you're more likely to open doors and injure your position. And I've seen that happen. Very rarely it's appropriate to correct some inadvertent misstatements or add context, but usually not.

[Gregg]

My mate from school is a Viscout and I promise you he isn't answering any calls from Trump.
He didn't get invited to the Abbey but does have a VIP to the concert.

I developed the theory based on stories that during his State Visit he was told that only he and Melania were invited to Buckingham Palace for the State Dinner. But he piled all 4 of his kids and spouses in the limo and just brought them anyway, leaving the staff to scramble to find seats for them.

I wouldn't put it past him to just roll up to the Abby and walk on in, and only abandoned the plan when the Secret Service drivers refused to do it.

[Slim Cognito]

He has before, specifically at charity events. He’d walk in, grab a chair on the stage meant for an actual donor, sit there grin on his face then walk out without donating a dime.

[sterngard friegen]

I changed my vote from hung jury to liable and ordered to pay less than a million dollars.

I think the cumulative evidence from plaintiff's friends, from the two other victims, and from Trump's deposition testimony as well as the Billy Busch brag should carry her over the top. After all the burden of persuasion is 50% + a feather.

[p0rtia]

Screen Shot 2023-05-04 at 6.08.08 PM.png (123.37 KiB) Viewed 777 times

[Phoenix520]

[Sam the Centipede]

It's raining today in Ireland.

Well, it is a Thursday.

Not good golfing weather.

That's fine: Trump is not a good golfer. Fore!!

[p0rtia]

Screen Shot 2023-05-04 at 6.08.08 PM.png

Screen Shot 2023-05-04 at 6.38.29 PM.png (144.35 KiB) Viewed 741 times

You are here: "And then the judge will backtrack...."

[Maybenaut]

As the deponent, isn’t it true that Trump couldn’t have gotten any questions in? IANACivL, so I don’t know much about depositions. But I was under the impression that only the other side asks questions during the deposition, and the deponent’s lawyer is there to make a record of objections.

Actually, any and all sides can ask questions during a deposition. One party will schedule it but then anyone can participate in questioning the deponent.

Purposes are for discovery, or trial use such as testimony at trial, or even for impeachment.

Many times attorneys will even designate the depo for trial testimony, rather than a discovery depo. A witness can't make the trial, for instance or has died in the interum, etc.

Thanks! Don’t know nuthin ‘bout civil procedure

[chancery]

Screen Shot 2023-05-04 at 6.08.08 PM.png

Some more context for this development:

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/sta ... 0309430279

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

E. Jean Carroll rests her case.

Before that moment

A federal judge sustained an objection to the admission of a piece of evidence E. Jean Carroll's team wanted to introduce into evidence.

The judge says Carroll can try introducing it again "in the event that Mr. Trump, for any reason, testifies in this case."

From that remark, it would seem that door appears to be open.

Tacopina says the defense rests.

But the door doesn't yet appear to be closed.

Tacopina informed the judge that Trump waived his right to testify. [emphasis added]

Judge Kaplan gave Trump a deadline of 5 p.m. ET on Sunday to *ask* to reopen the case for the purpose of testifying.

Kaplan won't say he'll grant such a request.

Kaplan said (not in these words) he has made that allowance in light of reports of Trump's remarks at the press conference in Ireland.

On Judge Kaplan propping the door ever-so-slightly ajar for Trump to testify:

This is widely, and almost certainly accurately, being interpreted as calling Trump on his bluff about wanting to “confront” Carroll, and preempting spin that the court wouldn’t let him.

In brief:

Tacopina repeatedly said Trump won’t testify, and on Sunday, we’ll see if that status quo, as widely expected, becomes definitive and official.

[realist]

Realist is correct. However, except when needed to preserve testimony for trial, it's quite rare for the witness's own counsel to ask questions at the witnesses's deposition. You can't use the testimony at trial (for the reasons stated in the twitter thread above), and it's an accepted rule of thumb that you're more likely to open doors and injure your position. And I've seen that happen. Very rarely it's appropriate to correct some inadvertent misstatements or add context, but usually not.

And I've seen it happen way to often, and even with very experienced litigators. Sometimes they just can't help themselves, even though they know better. And then of course there are those who don't know better.

[Kendra]

On Judge Kaplan propping the door ever-so-slightly ajar for Trump to testify:

This is widely, and almost certainly accurately, being interpreted as calling Trump on his bluff about wanting to “confront” Carroll, and preempting spin that the court wouldn’t let him.

In brief:

[SuzieC]

Realist is correct. However, except when needed to preserve testimony for trial, it's quite rare for the witness's own counsel to ask questions at the witnesses's deposition. You can't use the testimony at trial (for the reasons stated in the twitter thread above), and it's an accepted rule of thumb that you're more likely to open doors and injure your position. And I've seen that happen. Very rarely it's appropriate to correct some inadvertent misstatements or add context, but usually not.

And I've seen it happen way to often, and even with very experienced litigators. Sometimes they just can't help themselves, even though they know better. And then of course there are those who don't know better.

I had it happen frequently. Usually when opposing counsel thought you damaged his case. Then he (it was always a he) would start asking questions and when I objected would say how can you stop me? So, on occasion, I did it myself. Even litigated it once when I introduced the deposition testimony I had elicited and opposing counsel raised a big stink. Judge ruled there was nothing in the civil rules that prohibited an opposing party from asking questions.