Former President Donald Trump has asked for a new trial or a change in verdict in the E. Jean Carroll case on grounds of alleged errors made by the judge.
Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday asked for a new trial or a change of verdict in the E. Jean Carroll case, citing “extreme restrictions” imposed on his courtroom testimony and erroneous instructions to the jury.
President Trump’s attorneys argued that each of these errors considered separately is serious enough to render the jury verdict tainted and justifies his request for a new trial.
‘Extreme Restrictions’
President Trump’s attorneys argued in the memorandum in support of their motion that the trial-court proceedings didn’t comply with the definition of common-law malice in multiple ways that were prejudicial.
Related Stories
One of these was by prohibiting President Trump from expressing the view that he believed the statements he made about Ms. Carroll were true.
They pointed to an exchange ahead of President Trump’s courtroom testimony where the judge demanded to know beforehand everything the former president was going to say and going over it in detail before allowing the jury hear the former president’s statements.
“When President Trump took the stand, the Court struck even the very limited testimony about President Trump’s state of mind that the questions allowed,” his attorneys wrote.
“Did you even instruct anyone to hurt Ms. Carroll in your statements?” Ms. Habba, as defense counsel, posed the question to President Trump while he took the witness stand.
“No,” President Trump replied. “I just wanted to defend myself, my family, and frankly, the presidency.”
However, Ms. Carroll’s attorney raised an immediate objection, which Judge Kaplan sustained, ordering the jury to disregard everything beyond “no.”
President Trump’s lawyers argued that the judge made a mistake in restricting the testimony.
“A defendant’s testimony to any motivation for the statement, other than a bare desire to harm the plaintiff, fatally undermines a finding of common-law malice and prohibits an award of punitive damages,” they wrote in the filing.
“This is especially true in a case like this, where President Trump’s public statements were defensive, made by a high-profile public figure in response to a highly visible, public accusation of uncorroborated, decades-old alleged wrongdoing,” they continued.
Public figures in similar circumstances to President Trump have “compelling motivations” to deny allegations for reasons other than a desire to harm the plaintiff, they argued, adding that by foreclosing any such testimony, and “erroneously striking the one sentence of President Trump’s testimony on this point—the Court all but assured that the jury would make a baseless punitive-damages award.”
Jury Instruction ‘Erroneous And Prejudicial’
President Trump’s attorneys also argued that the jury was misled by “erroneous and prejudicial” instructions regarding common-law malice.
The former president’s counsel submitted proposed instructions that punitive damage instructions to the jury should make clear that to meet the legal standard for common-law malice is for the intent to injury to be the “sole motivation.”
However, the court overruled this proposal. Instead, Judge Kaplan told jurors they can find that a statement is made with intent to harm the defendant not only if “it is made with a deliberate intent to injure or made out of hatred, ill will or spite,“ but also if it is ”made with willful, wanton, or reckless disregard of another’s rights.”
The former president’s attorneys argued that the judge’s instructions disregarded New York’s “well-established ’sole motivation’ requirement for common-law malice” and, as such, were incorrect.
“By affirmatively instructing the jury that an intention to harm the plaintiff is not required to support a finding of common-law malice, the instruction plainly created an erroneous impression regarding the standard of liability,” the attorneys wrote in the motion.
“This instruction was erroneous, and the error was prejudicial,” they argued.
President Trump’s attorneys asked that the $83.3 million in damages awarded to Ms. Carroll should be sharply reduced.
This legal saga stems from a defamation lawsuit Ms. Carroll filed over allegedly defamatory comments President Trump made about her in 2019 when she first publicly accused him of sexual assault.
President Trump has denied all of Ms. Carroll’s allegations.
Original News Source Link – Epoch Times
Running For Office? Conservative Campaign Consulting – Election Day Strategies!