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

[raison de arizona]

Unsealed docs...
Kaplan tried to get the Tim Pool listener booted from the jury: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .162.0.pdf
Xbit A, Tim Pool's podcast topics: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .163.1.pdf
Defense response: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 67.0_3.pdf

[Maybenaut]

Side question, though, for all the lawyers in the house:

A court of competent jurisdiction has now gone on record as finding Trump liable for defamation. This means a court has entered into the record that Trump has uttered publicly and 'loudly' a comment about someone that is, by legal definition, untrue. That means that a court has found Trump has lied.

Does this open any doors to be used elsewere in matters where Trump's probity or mendacity is at issue?

Follow-up to the above question: Since he a) is named in a second case by her, and b) is CONTINUING to call her a liar...

Trump added that he would “probably” attend the trial. “It’s a disgrace that it’s allowed to happen,” he ranted. “False accusations against a rich guy, or in my case against a famous, rich and political person that’s leading the polls by 40 points, and I have to go back for a woman who made a false accusation about me.”

“I’m going to go back, and I’m going to confront her because look, this woman is a disgrace and it shouldn’t be allowed to happen in our country,” he continued. It’s totally false, it was fake, she’s a fake. She wrote in her book she’s a Democrat.”)

... can she use the liability verdict from the done trial as a weapon in the second trial or sue him a third time for the continuing defamation?

Whether something can be relitigated that has already been litigated is really, really complicated. So, as bob would say, it depends.

The basic legal concepts are "issue preclusion" and "claim preclusion."

Issue preclusion is where there is a valid and final judgment; the same issue is being brought in a new lawsuit; the issue is essential to the judgment; and the issue was actually litigated in the previous lawsuit. The issues must have actually been litigated, and the parties must be the same (although there are a number of exceptions that would bind non-parties to the final judgment in a prior lawsuit). My recollection of all of this from law school and studying for the various bar exams I've taken is that these issues are kind of squishy and fact-dependent.

Claim preclusion (sometimes called res judicata) means, essentially, that a losing plaintiff is stuck with the final judgment and can't re-sue. Also, if the plaintiff wins but doesn't like the damages, they can't go back and sue again trying to get more.

But that explanation is basic, basic, basic, and it's what I recall from the last time I took a bar exam, which was a very long time ago. I don't know what any of this means for the other lawsuit, especially since the United States is also a party.

As a criminal defense attorney, the only thing about preclusion that I recall from my own work is that once a defendant is found guilty in a criminal trial, he's not (generally) permitted to relitigate that in a civil trial because the issue has already been adjudicated in a system that imposes a higher burden of proof.

Maybe bob or chancery or sterngard or someone with civil law experience can provide a more detailed (and helpful) explanation.

[chancery]

But that explanation is basic, basic, basic, and it's what I recall from the last time I took a bar exam, which was a very long time ago. I don't know what any of this means for the other lawsuit, especially since the United States is also a party.

Oof. Don't have energy right now to dive into issue & claim preclusion. Although I will say that, as best as I can recall, preclusion attaches immediately upon entry of a judgment, even if the judgment is on appeal. This can lead to awkward situations ...

However, the fact that the United States is a party won't matter for issue/claim preclusion.

Either the fact-finder will determine that Trump didn't act within the scope of his federal employment (a tricky, subtle issue, in which the various policy considerations are at war with each other), which means that the Westfall Act doesn't apply and the United States is not a proper party; or, if the fact-finder determines the other way, the Westfall Act _does apply_, the United States will be substituted in place of Trump, and the case will be dismissed on Sovereign Immunity grounds (because the United States has not waived Sovereign Immunity for defamation claims) without any consideration of issue and claim preclusion.

[Maybenaut]

But if the fact finder decides that Trump wasn’t acting within the scope of his authority, than it’s over because of issue preclusion, no?

[chancery]

Off the top of my head, pretty much, mostly, but maybe not everything.

Can't deny the sexual assault. And that's most of the ball game.

So long as the gist of the earlier defamatory comments is the same as the 2022 comments at issue in the recent trial, it would make sense that he couldn't relitigate the defamatory nature of the comments.

Willfulness and malice and maybe some other issues (I haven't read the jury form) might get a little tricky, especially if his deposition didn't cover the earlier statement (it might have; I just don't know). It might be a reach to apply jury findings as to Trump's state of mind in 2022 to his state of mind several years earlier, albeit saying similar things.

The thing is, issue and claim preclusion is typically used about the same thing, not as often for a very similar thing done at a different time under possibly different circumstances. I'm not saying that Carroll's lawyers couldn't make a compelling issue preclusion argument, and maybe even claim preclusion as well, just that you'd need to review the record carefully and do the arguments step by step to see how they work.

At a minimum you'd want to study the jury form, compare the two statements, and go over the deposition. I don't have access to the full deposition, and I'm not inclined to study the jury form or compare the statements (sorry).

[chancery]

Also, damages. Different time frame, and do you have to calculate whether the earlier judgment fully compensated for some elements? Or are you allowed to pretend to the jury that there was no other damages award, and maybe the judge sorts it out post-trial. I have no idea.

[sterngard friegen]

Apart from punitive damages, which are to make an example and serve as a deterrent, damages are either economic or noneconomic. Sometimes noneconomic damages can be very high, such as in the lawsuits against Alex Jones. In each case, however, these damages serve a compensatory purpose.

[chancery]

Actually, I think it would be a bad idea to pursue the original complaint. A whole lot of downsides for no significant upside. Crazy.

[Slim Cognito]

Heckuva week for Hollywood writers to be on strike. I'm jonesing for some Colbert so bad right now.

[Ben-Prime]

Wow. Thank you for the very informative response chain on my question. Maybenaut, you're my hero of the day.

I always joke that I come here for the wit and snark, but stay for the knowledge and wisdom. It's not as pithy as 'Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow', but it's as true.

[shannon]

Enough women will believe it, though. There was a lot of “Boys will be boys, silly. He didn’t mean nuthin’ by it ” about the p**** tape from MAGA women at the time. After 5 years they no longer believe that. Doesn’t mean they won’t vote for him.

Basically most MAGA women are stereotypical "Mean Girls" who are fine until the leopards start eating their very own personal face.

What has gotten into Republican women?

[raison de arizona]

Basically most MAGA women are stereotypical "Mean Girls" who are fine until the leopards start eating their very own personal face.

What has gotten into Republican women?

Great article, thanks for sharing!

[Phoenix520]

[Suranis]

Yep which is why it was left to White Men to turn against that Blob of shit in 2020, and who got 0% of the credit.

[raison de arizona]

Yep which is why it was left to White Men to turn against that Blob of shit in 2020, and who got 0% of the credit.

White male support of tfg did drop (62% -> 58%), but it remained higher than white female support (55%) which actually rose (was 52-53%). So kinda.
https://www.essence.com/news/politics/5 ... tion-2020/

[Greatgrey]

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

[jemcanada2]

Tfg will have to pay the $5 million plus interest up front before he can appeal it, won’t he? His MAGAts better start checking the couch cushions for change.

[Maybenaut]

I think he can ask for a stay, and pay some kind of surety bond to the court. I think.

[Dave from down under]

A $5M surety bond is the only amount that would ensure the money is paid when his appeal fails.

[chancery]

FRCP 62 provides for an automatic stay of judgment enforcement if the judgment debtor provides an appeal bond or other security acceptable to the district court. In SDNY the done thing is to use the agency founded by the legendary Elmer Hyde, in which case approval is pro forma.

It would be _really_ interesting to find out what premium Trump will be charged, but we'll never know.

[Volkonski]

New York Times

E. Jean Carroll is weighing whether to file a new defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump in the wake of his comments against her during a CNN town hall Wednesday night, her lawyer said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/11/nyre ... tw-nytimes

[John Thomas8]

New York Times

E. Jean Carroll is weighing whether to file a new defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump in the wake of his comments against her during a CNN town hall Wednesday night, her lawyer said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/11/nyre ... tw-nytimes

KEEP POUNDING!!!!!!

Like she'll ever see a dime, but I like the thought.

[Phoenix520]

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

[chancery]

No.