E. Jean Carroll's lawsuits against Trump for Sexual Assault and Defamation

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Seems like a surprising mistake for someone like Jose Pagliery to make, but I hope he is in fact wrong!

x-posted with N.E.B.

[Dave_LF]

This does not sound encouraging for a unanimous jury (one reason that I usually try to keep my cases out of federal court is the requirement for a unanimous jury in civil cases).

What's with all the people who've been saying the verdict only needs to be 5/6 unanimous?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't know; they are wrong. Here is what the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says:

Rule 48. Number of Jurors; Verdict; Polling
(a) NUMBER OF JURORS. A jury must begin with at least 6 and no
more than 12 members, and each juror must participate in the verdict unless excused under Rule 47(c).
(b) VERDICT. Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the verdict
must be unanimous and must be returned by a jury of at least 6
members.
(c) POLLING. After a verdict is returned but before the jury is
discharged, the court must on a party’s request, or may on its
own, poll the jurors individually. If the poll reveals a lack of unanimity or lack of assent by the number of jurors that the parties
stipulated to, the court may direct the jury to deliberate further
or may order a new trial

There was no such stipulation in this case, so far as I am aware, and it would be utterly shocking for Tacopina to agree to so stipulate.

[Dave_LF]

Searching for "New York civil 5/6 unanimous" brought me to this:
https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/civil-prac ... sect-4113/
I'm going to assume it's about something different (perhaps these are the rules for civil cases under New York law while EJC is a federal civil case in New York's jurisdiction?), but it is probably the source of the confusion since it looks right on the surface for those like me who don't know law.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's New York state court, which has different rules of civil procedure than federal court. In California state court, we only need 9 of 12 jurors to reach a verdict in civil case, which is why I said that I try to get keep cases out of federal court, which requires a unanimous jury.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Carrol's attorneys informed the judge of Trump's latest truth social post and the judge refused to take any action.

[Dave_LF]

Seeing reports that the verdict is already in and will be announced at 3pm Eastern (i.e. 11 minutes from now)

[N.E. Brigand]

I would think a fast verdict bodes ill for Carroll's case. Unless they took her attorney at her word that this was about getting to the truth rather than any specific financial renumeration and found Trump liable but didn't award damages?

[Dave_LF]

You would think right, I'm afraid

Edit: Well; sort of. No to rape but yes to sexual abuse?

[N.E. Brigand]

I was wrong.

[Dave_LF]

[Sunsilver]

Wow! Good to see this!

So, what's the logic behind saying it wasn't rape? Lack of proof for rape? (No DNA?)
Edit: read the Twitter posts, and that's exactly why, not enough proof.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yeah, as soon as I saw there was a quick verdict I was sure that she had won. There was no way they were going to find him not liable that quickly under these circumstances.

Now in the future every time you mention Trump, you can say, Twice-impeached former President Donald Trump, who was held liable for sexually assault ...

[N.E. Brigand]

Adam Klasfeld had very helpfully shared the (blank) verdict form earlier today. I add the results in boldface.

Regarding E. Jean Carroll's claim of battery, they were to answer the following:

Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

1. Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll? YES _____ NO _____ NO
[If you answered “Yes,” skip to Question 4. If you answered “No,” continue to Question 2.]

2. Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carroll? YES _____ NO _____ YES
[If you answered “Yes,” skip to Question 4. If you answered “No,” continue to Question 3.]

3. Mr. Trump forcibly touched Ms. Carroll? YES _____ NO _____ (n/a)
[If you answered “Yes,” continue to Question 4. If you answered “No,” skip to Question 6.]

4. Ms. Carroll was injured as a result of Mr. Trump’s conduct? YES _____ NO _____ YES
If “Yes,” insert a dollar amount that would fairly and adequately compensate her for that injury or those injuries. $____________ $2 MILLION
If “No,” insert $1. $ ___________ (n/a)
[Continue to Question 5, whether you answered “Yes” or “No.”]

5. Mr. Trump’s conduct was willfully or wantonly negligent, reckless, or done with a conscious disregard of the rights of Ms. Carroll, or was so reckless as to amount to such disregard? YES _____ NO ____ YES
If “Yes,” how much, if any, should Mr. Trump pay to Ms. Carroll in punitive damages? $____________ $20,000
[Continue to Question 6, whether you answered “Yes” or “No.”]

And regarding Carroll's claim of defamation, they were to answer the following:

Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

6. Mr. Trump’s statement was defamatory? YES _____ NO ____ YES
[If you answered “Yes,” continue to Question 7. If you answered “No,” stop here and return your verdict.]

Did Ms. Carroll prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that
7. Mr. Trump’s statement was false? YES _____ NO ____ YES
[If you answered “Yes,” continue to Question 8. If you answered “No,” stop here and return your verdict.]

8. Mr. Trump made the statement with actual malice? YES _____ NO ____ YES
[If you answered “Yes,” continue to Question 9. If you answered “No,” stop here and return your verdict.]

Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

9. Ms. Carroll was injured as a result of Mr. Trump’s publication of the October 12, 2022 statement? YES _____ NO _____ YES
If “Yes,” insert a dollar amount for any damages other than the reputation repair program. $____________ $1 MILLION
If “Yes,” insert a dollar amount for any damages for the reputation repair program only. $____________ $1.7 MILLION
If “No,” insert $1. $____________ (n/a)
[Continue to Question 10, whether you answered “Yes” or “No.”]

10. In making the statement, Mr. Trump acted maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, spite or wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of the rights of another? YES _____ NO ____ YES
If “Yes,” how much, if any, should Mr. Trump pay to Ms. Carroll in punitive damages? $____________ $280,000

They also received much more detailed instructions from the judge explaining in more detail what they had to agreed on and to what degree of certainty.

The jury was obviously keeping track of the total, since their numbers add up to an even $5 million.

[Dave_LF]

That’s what I thought too, V, but so many were saying the opposite, and what do I know? A little surprised they were so swiftly unanimous on not rape, though.

[N.E. Brigand]

That’s what I thought too, V, but so many were saying the opposite, and what do I know? A little surprised they were so swiftly unanimous on not rape, though.

You know more than me! I assumed the jury would need more than a few hours to determine how much to pay Carroll, and thus that a quick verdict indicated they didn't need that time.

[Dave_LF]

The Lincoln Project was one of the people/groups that put a pessimistic spin on having a quick verdict, and this is the statement they've issued:

Donald J. Trump today was found culpable of committing an incredible offense. Though the outcome of the trial may not be what she had hoped for, we commend Ms. Carroll for having the courage to do what so many in the GOP refuse to- confront the heinous actions of Trump head on.

Is the not-rape part really that big a cloud to go with the silver lining?

You know more than me! I assumed the jury would need more than a few hours to determine how much to pay Carroll, and thus that a quick verdict indicated they didn't need that time.

I'm pretty curious about how you quantify that sort of damage too. I suppose the judge must have given them pretty clear guidelines.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Of course, many in the media are leading by saying some variation of "jury finds that Trump did not rape Carroll."

The speed of the damages calculation is pretty surprising on some level, but in a case like this they are really just pulling a number of of the air. It's not like they are analyzing complicated wage calculations, or some other kind of specific special damages.

x-posted with Dave.

[narya]

So who pays for everyone's legal fees, and does that come out of the $5M or is it added to it?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Trump has to pay his lawyers, but Carroll's attorneys will be paid a percentage of the $5 million, as she indicated that she had a contingency fee agreement with them. Generally, unlike in the UK in which the general rule is that the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, the American rule is that unless there is a contractual or statutory provision that provides for reasonable attorney's fees, both sides bear the cost of their own attorney's fees. To the best of my knowledge, the Adult Survivors Act does not provide for reasonable attorney's fees, and since defamation is a common law tort there is no statutory or contractual provision for attorneys fees there. However, as the prevailing party, Carroll will be able to be compensated for the other litigation costs (such as deposition transcripts, investigators, jury fees, possibly expert testimony, etc.).