Verdict reached in the Carroll-Trump case (liable for defamation and lesser battery charge)

I wonder if this opens the door for woman that were "sexually abused" by Hollywood actors?

 

I'm sure he will. He appeals everything and loses them consistently. I believe the chances of winning appeals in the federal system is somewhere around 6%. Trump is going to have to show the trial judge committed reversible error. That's why I asked what grounds you think he should base his appeal on.

 

Can he also dispute the damages awarded?

Genuinely asking.

 

Wow, that really is a bunch of people trying to play the "He just sexually abused her, not raped her" card.

 

Okay Tilly thanks. I get it.

 

Yes.

 

Thanks. I know it's probably not about the money for him anyways, but it's worth noting.

 

Wrong...my take at the beginning was lets at least hear what the charges are before we proclaim him guilty and proclaim justice is done.

I have not watched or kept up with this case. So, I don't have much to comment on as I myself have not seen the evidence. What I do know is a lot of people hate Trump, and this is pretty much perfect timing in the election cycle for Trump's opponents to maximally benefit from a trial like this. The Biden family seems to be one of the biggest beneficiaries as this distracts the masses from the some of the things I have been reading about going on with that family. There are also a lot of people who truly hate Trump. He is the modern day real Goldstein if you have read 1984. That would create reasonable doubt in my mind if the entire case is built on one accusation and two friends swear their friend told them about it the next day. I would need something more than that if I was on that jury to believe the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. I would need some kind of physical evidence to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and since I did not watch or keep up with the trial, I am not sure what the totality of the evidence is against Trump.

 

This was a civil suit. The burden of proof is lower.

 

The standard of proof is the preponderance of the evidence standard....50.0001%

 

Part of the evidence was another woman who said Trump did something very similar to her on an airplane a few years earlier. I think Carroll's lawyers also produced other claims of sexual assault into evidence from other women who have made similar claims. This established a pattern of behavior which Trump's own deposition that because he's famous, he gets to do these things basically buried Trump in this civil suit.

 

That and the admission of the Access Hollywood grab them by the...tape will likely be his main points on appeal. He will very likely lose on both.

 

They have nailed Turley:

 

While the burden is lower it’s a unanimous verdict.

Twice impeached, indicted, proven sexual abuser is the GOP likely nominee

 

This was a trial court case, and it doesn't set precedent or change the law.

The relevant statute of limitations varies dependent upon jurisdiction. Since you mention Hollywood, worth noting that California actually passed a law several years ago to allow some older claims to be brought and tried within a certain window. I suppose those laws must have been retroactive but didn't follow those changes or related challenges.

I don't know New York law either, but I think (could be wrong) that this case was based upon Trump's defamatory statements against Carroll, wherein he denied having met her, accused her of a conspiracy to make lie about him for political reasons, etc. I don't know whether she could have brought this civil case absent Trump's more recent statements about her. I'm sure someone knows the answer to that.

 

The city of New York recently changed the laws... probably for this one certain court case.

Go read when that happened. They've been planning this for 5 years. There is much more in this artifice from her originator lawsuit (defamation lawsuit) against President Trump..

A brand new law could be Donald Trump's undoing

 

Pose that hypothesis to your wife/mother/daughter(s) and any female friends, and let us know if they think attempted rape is the same as "didn't rape."

 

While I think that Tacopina went overboard with the cross examination and didn't do his client any favors it was really Trump himself through his deposition that point the proverbial nail in his coffin. After the jury saw the video of Trump's deposition the chance of him prevailing was near zero.

 

Think about that moment of violence- this huge guy, grabbing her wrists, threatening her, pinning her physically against a wall, tears her tights, jams his hand in her, then his pen1s.

Imagine that person being your daughter, sister, cousin, wife. PROVEN in a court of law. Spare me any burden of proof civil/criminal. No longer allegations- a verdict.

An prolonged act of violence.

Does anyone actually think this is the only time TFG did this? Before or since?

 

ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. The law generally punishes an attempt to commit a crime. Additionally, there is no such crime as an attempted theft in the state of Florida. Our theft statute contemplates attempts, so an attempt to commit a theft is treated as a completed theft.

Florida's standard jury instruction on attempts.:

5.1 ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CRIME

§ 777.04(1), Fla. Stat.

Use when attempt is charged or is a lesser included offense.

To prove the crime of Attempted (crime attempted), the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Use when necessary to define “attempt” as an element of another crime.

In order to prove that the defendant attempted to commit the crime of (crime attempted), the State must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) did some act toward committing the crime of (crime attempted) that went beyond just thinking or talking about it.

2. [He] [She] would have committed the crime except that

a. someone prevented [him] [her] from committing the crime of (crime attempted).

[or]

b. [he] [she] failed.

The crime of (crime attempted) is defined as (insert elements of crime attempted);

Give if applicable. Affirmative Defense. § 777.04(5)(a), Fla. Stat. Carroll v. State, 680 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Harriman v. State, 174 So. 3d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

It is a defense to the crime of Attempted (crime attempted) if the defendant abandoned [his] [her] attempt to commit the offense or otherwise prevented its commission, under circumstances indicating a complete and voluntary renunciation of [his] [her] criminal purpose.

Renunciation is not complete and voluntary where the defendant failed to complete the crime because of unanticipated difficulties, unexpected resistance, a decision to postpone the crime to another time, or circumstances known by the defendant that increased the probability of being apprehended.

If you find that the defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] [she] abandoned [his] [her] attempt to commit the offense or otherwise prevented its commission, under circumstances indicating a complete and voluntary renunciation of [his] [her] criminal purpose, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of Attempted (crime attempted).

If the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] [she] abandoned [his] [her] attempt to commit the offense or that [he] [she] otherwise prevented its commission, under circumstances indicating a complete and voluntary renunciation of [his] [her] criminal purpose, you should find [him] [her] guilty of Attempted (crime attempted) if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lesser Included Offenses

No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.