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

The comments are gold.

 

It appears these disputes were more procedurally involved than I realized including two separate lawsuits, both state and federal court, the defamation claim and the sexual assault claim. Were those lawsuits consolidated? It appears that she won on both claims and was awarded damages for each?

I'm not sure what your question was about opening up Hollywood actors to liability as it seems you're just suggesting that New York changed the law for this one case. But I think several states changed their laws in recent years to provide a window for older sexual assault claims, and I think that was likely a part of increased awareness and concerns about sexual violence and harassment, and Hollywood has been part of that discussion.

For the record, I have serious reservations about such laws given fading memories and evidentiary issues after significant passage of time. Having said that, the jury also found that Trump defamed her, and from what I'm reading, she filed the defamation lawsuit back in 2019 before the law was changed.

 

The guilty verdict has such a low threshold that it's almost impossible to fight an alleged encounter with someone 30 years ago.

 

If you’re a star you can do it…

 

Bless your heart.

 

He may be innocent, but his defense attorney was atrocious. Horrible choice to manage that trial and Trump's deposition was a clusterf***. I don't think Trump took this one too seriously. Yes, I am suspicious of the accuser as she was apparently a big fan of The Apprentice, which seems odd when the host supposedly raped her. But yeah, Trump didn't put much effort into this and probably cost himself $5 million in doing so. Even though it will be appealed and lessened and that is pocket change to Trump.

 

For Trump this was basically playing ice hockey against the Soviet Union in the Soviet Union.

 

It was a strong case against Trump - Carroll was humble and convincing, witnesses corroborated her testimony from being contemporaneously told about the rape, Trump bragging about assaulting women on video, backed up by the testimony of three women who were assaulted by him. Trump's defense was, essentially, that's what rich guys do. Pretty easy for the jury.

 

It’s all just so unfair! lmao

 

Imagine STILL supporting this piece of shit. Amazing.

 

Does the term guilty used in the thread title really belong in a civil case? Just asking, knowing if I were to wrongly use that term the GC lawyers would call me out on it.

 

I mean was this really even necessary to go to trial? It’s just a money grab.

 

He assaulted and defamed her, she stood up for herself. A money grab is opening up a hotel across from the WH when you are POTUs.

 

And a witch hunt too for that matter. While this example is way off-topic when the words money grab are used together with the words defamation lawsuit this immediately comes to mind.

 

Or overcharging the Secret Service for accommodations at facilities that you own.

 

Why do you hate law and order? I thought it's what the GOP was all about.

 

The woman accused him of rape. They found she'd lied. Yet they found Trump defamed her?
Kinda, sorta makes sense, maybe.

 

This is from something in the 1990s?

Not that I don’t think Trump said crap things to women at some point.

But from the 90s lol

oh and I’m sure any trial Trump gets in NYC will be fair and unbiased lol.

 

Wut?