Former President Trump appeared before a federal appeals court Friday where his attorney argued that he should get a new trial in writer E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit accusing him of sexual abuse and defamation that ended in a multimillion-dollar jury verdict.
The argument delved into whether Trump’s trial judge erred by allowing the jury to hear from two other women who accused the former president of sexual assault and the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, in which Trump can be heard bragging about groping women without their permission.
“It’s very hard to overturn a jury verdict based on evidentiary rulings,” noted Circuit Judge Denny Chin.
The three-judge panel on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, all appointed by Democratic presidents, heard arguments for less than a half-hour, hewing closely to the allotted argument time.
Carroll took Trump to trial last year over claims he sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s in a department store dressing room and defamed her when she came forward publicly during Trump’s presidency. A jury sided with Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million, but he maintains that he never assaulted the columnist.
Trump himself attended Friday’s proceeding after not attending any of the trial and later blaming his lawyers for the loss.
In a separate case, Carroll later won $83.3 million from Trump over additional defamation claims. Though Trump is appealing that verdict, too, it was not at issue before the 2nd Circuit on Friday.
Much of the argument revolved around the former president’s claim that his trial judge erred in allowing the jury to hear from two women who accused Trump of sexual assault on a 1979 airplane flight and during a magazine interview in 2005.
Trump has denied their claims too, and his attorney contended that federal evidence rules did not permit them to testify. The case is a “quintessential ‘he said, she said’ case,” D. John Sauer said.
At one point, a judge told Sauer he was speaking too fast and asked him to slow down.
“It’s an important case and I’m passionate about it,” Sauer responded.
Sauer has become one of Trump’s most prominent appellate attorneys and successfully argued before the Supreme Court that former presidents enjoy some immunity from criminal prosecution.
Carroll on Friday was represented by Roberta Kaplan, who gained prominence roughly a decade ago for successfully arguing before the Supreme Court that the federal government cannot discriminate against same-sex couples when determining federal benefits. Kaplan has served as Carroll’s lead attorney, even after leaving her firm earlier this year amid reports of internal frustrations.
Kaplan contended that Trump’s involvement and the salacious nature of the case should not distract the panel from its core normality.
“Despite the prominence of this case and the parties involved, it really just involves the routine application of the Federal Rules of Evidence,” Kaplan said, noting that the trial judge “has many years of experience trying cases.”
Kaplan also contended that even if the trial judge did make mistakes in allowing the two accusers to testify, the error was harmless so the verdict should still stand.
Friday’s argument took place in Manhattan, just down the street from where Trump was convicted in a separate criminal trial earlier this year. A judge on the panel remarked that the room where arguments were held was “very full.”
