I’m going to start with the TL;DR:
Donald Trump was found civilly liable – not criminally guilty – of battery on E. Jean Carroll today, based on her allegations that he touched her in an unwanted, sexual way in a Bergdorf’s bathroom in 1996. He was also found liable for defamation for publishing a statement saying she lied about it. He will not be going to jail for this. He will not be registering as a sex offender. He will be paying her $5 million, not withstanding any successful appeals of the verdict.
The longer version:
Before I get into the specifics of Carroll vs. Trump, I have to give a brief ‘splainer. Most OT readers are savvy enough to know this, but Twitter reveals that there are still people out there who need a little legal education on that matter. Civil trials are much different from criminal trials. Remember OJ Simpson? Remember how after he was acquitted of criminal charges for the murders of his wife Nicole and her friend Ron Brown, he was sued by the victims’ parents for wrongful death? At that trial he was found liable and the families awarded a monetary judgment. That’s what happened today to Donald Trump; a jury in a civil case found him liable for damages to E. Jean Carroll for certain actions, which I will dig into shortly.
Terminology is important here, for clarity. We don’t use words like “convicted”, “guilty”, or “acquitted” in civil cases. There is no jail sentence, no criminal record, and none of the many future-impacting consequences that come along with a criminal conviction. Instead we say a person is “liable”, and punishment typically comes in the form of monetary damages.
Turning to the specifics of this case: Carroll’s lawsuit contained two causes of actions, or “counts” (the criminal equivalent would be charges or also counts): Battery, and Defamation. The battery count has multiple underlying bases: First degree rape (sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion), third degree rape (sexual intercourse without consent), first degree sexual abuse (sexual contact by forcible compulsion), third degree sexual abuse (sexual contact without consent), sexual misconduct (again, sexual intercourse without consent), and forcible touching (touching the sexual or other intimate parts of another person for the purpose of degrading or abusing such person, or for the purpose of gratifying the actor’s sexual desire*.)
Carroll’s retelling of events is that Trump forced her against a wall, removed her tights, put his hand between her legs and forced his penis in her vagina, as she resisted and tried to fight him off. If these things happened as Carroll says, they could fall under any and all of the above categories of offenses. At common law, battery is an offensive touching, so the jury could find for her on the battery count if they believed that any part of the above scenarios took place.
The jury was instructed accordingly on the definitions of rape, sexual abuse, and forcible touching. The form they filled out with their verdict specifically asked whether the jury believed by a preponderance of the evidence (more on that shortly) that Trump raped Carroll; if they said yes to that question, they’d move on to damages. If they said no, they moved on to question 2: Did they believe Trump sexually abused her? Again, if they did, they moved on to damages. If no, the next question was whether the believed Trump forcibly touched her. If no, then they would move on to the defamation count.
The jury here answered “no” to question 1; they did not find by a preponderance of the evidence that Trump had raped her. This is not an outrageous result, nor is it proof that the jury thought she was lying, given that the victim herself did not definitively testify that penetration had occurred. Essentially, she said she couldn’t tell. This is the rusty nail on which the MAGA faithful hang their red hats today, saying with their whole chests that Trump has been vindicated. They must have stopped reading at that point, because the jury answered “yes” to question two; they did believe that he had sexually abused her (made forcible or nonconsensual sexual contact) , for which they awarded her $2 million, plus an additional $20,000 in punitive damages, finding his actions to have been willful and wanton.
The second count is defamation, arising out of Trump’s public statement in October 2022, on social media and to the press, calling Ms. Carroll a liar and otherwise besmirching her character, which she says has caused her harm and damaged her reputation. Once the jury was satisfied that Trump had committed sexual battery, it was not a far leap to find for her on the defamation count as well. For the damage to her reputation, she was awarded $1.7 million, with another $1 million for additional damages and $280,000 in punitives. In sum, the jury awarded Ms. Carroll $5 million.
Trump supporters and detractors alike misapprehend the verdict as definitive proof that he is/is not a rapist/sexual abuser. It is worth noting, on both sides, that the standard of proof in this case was “preponderance of the evidence,” which means “more likely than not”. This is a far cry from proof beyond a reasonable doubt; in fact, it is the lowest standard of proof used in the court room. Reasonable doubt is the most stringent, followed by clear and convincing evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is the lowest level of proof of the three.
In the end, Ms. Carroll was victorious here, no matter how Team Trump tries to spin it.But for those hoping to add “convicted felon” to Trump’s résumé, the wait continues.
* But these are crimes, you might say. Didn’t Em just lecture me that this was a civil case? Yes, because you can sue people if their criminal actions cause you harm.
Here is the spin that I have seen.
“He wasn’t found guilty of rape. He was found guilty of denying it.”
So that’s the new talking point, I reckon.Report
He doesn’t care. MAGA nation doesn’t care. And this is STILL not enough to get non-MAGA republicans to vote for a democrat.Report
Non-Maga Republicans won’t vote for Democrats because Democrats aren’t what Non-Maga Republicans want as representatives.
That shouldn’t be the political goal… the reasonable political goal would be to encourage them to sit-out an election or spoil their presidential vote while voting for other R’s down-ballot (as per recent Governor elections).Report
wvEsquiress May 10, 2023 at 8:59 am
I wouldn’t expect it to be. Just as nothing Joe Biden could do would prompt me to vote for someone who stands for everything I abhor. I vote for people and policy, not parties. I’ve never understood why the wrongdoing of one candidate should sway one to vote against their own interests. And yet, I know that it does.Report
The reaction to the verdict is another data point showing that there is nothing the Republicans say that can be believed or taken at face value.
They claim to care about morality; They don’t.
Because it isn’t just this one episode, something that could plausibly be minimized as a good person having a lapse of judgement. Sexual harassment and misogyny is his known pattern, long before he ever became president.
His attitude of “powerful men can do whatever they want” is the core of his worldview, the principle that animates every action he does, whether it is extorting the president of Ukraine or defrauding the suckers at his phony college.
And this is what the vast majority of Republican base voters want. They aren’t “holding their nose” and voting for the lesser of two evils- There are half a dozen other Republicans who would pursue the same policies as Trump, but none have the toxic hostility to the American principle of equality under the law.Report
I didn’t follow the case in any detail… the one thing that injected itself into my consciousness regarding the trial was this: Trump’s defense was that it didn’t happen because she wasn’t his type?
Can that possibly be correct? Did that really happen (and was it as dispositive as people claim)? Supposedly the Marla Maples look-a-like photo sunk him? But really, think about it… the defense would play out as I may have done this, I did do this, but not to her. In a preponderance of evidence standard, that’s like walking up to 49.5% and saying, here, here I draw the line.
If that description of events is reasonably accurate… then the ‘issue’ of time and statute of limitations is theoretical rather than material.Report
In his depo he reiterated what he said in the access hollywood tape that stars like him have been able to get away with sexual assault for a long time. Don’t think that helped.Report
Yeah, that’s what I saw screenshots of… I guess I was wondering if anyone who really followed the trial clicked through and watched the whole before/after for full context. And/Or how did he get maneuvered to that position where it was better to say that rather than just about anything else?Report
Em, any thought about why the punitive damages awards were so much lower than the compensatory damages awards?Report
Em may have thoughts as well, but numbers like these are consistent with my experience. Of the verdicts I’ve seen with punitives awarded, more of them have been fractions of the compensatory than multiples. Why? Lots of theories but generally, I posit that juries don’t like the idea of punitive damages much after they get explanations of what non-economic compensatory damages are for.Report
As a non-lawyer, I’ve never really understood why a civil trial would involve _punitive_ damages in the first place — isn’t that what criminal law is for? And why would punitive damages be awarded to the plaintiff — shouldn’t they be treated like fines and paid to the state?Report
The unsatisfying answer is that we decided long ago to allow punitive damages in civil trials and have stuck with it. For a great many civil claims, such as breach of contract cases and pure negligence tort claims, punitive damages are not available at all. They are, generally, restricted to tort claims involving intentional or reckless conduct that a jury considers morally blameworthy rather than just a violation of rules. Often, the conduct isn’t criminal, just really bad.
Punitive damages are hard to get, and often, as in this case, small in proportion to the harm caused.
They go to the plaintiff because the plaintiff is the party to the case, not the state. Nobody would bother to seek them otherwise, and the state would not got a dime. There have been proposals to allow states to glom onto some or all of a punitive award, and that is certainly something a state could legislate, but they have gone nowhere because not enough people who count want it.Report
Thanks, I appreciate the explanation.Report