The defense for former President Donald Trump indicated on Tuesday that he will not take the stand in the civil case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll in New York. Their argument pointed to the decision as Trump’s own, with the defense stating that only a single expert witness would be presented during the proceedings.
As the session ended, the defense confirmed they would present one expert witness, after which Carroll’s allegations would be weighed by the jury. The judge acknowledged the choice as voluntary on the part of the former president.
Earlier in the day, the jury heard from Lisa Birnbach, a longtime friend of Carroll, who described conversations about the alleged incident from the mid-1990s and referenced another complainant who accused Trump of inappropriate conduct aboard a 1979 flight.
Birnbach explained her role as a support for Carroll, saying she testified to share what she believed to be true on her friend’s behalf. Carroll, a journalist, also stressed that the aim of the testimony was to help the public understand Carroll’s version of events.
Birnbach recalled Carroll expressing hope that the world would believe the account and that Trump would be held accountable. She reiterated the sexual assault allegations in Carroll’s locker room, noting that the setting involved Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury department store known for its high-end fashion. Birnbach recalled Carroll describing the moment in vivid terms, stating that Carroll felt overwhelmed but believed it essential to speak out.
The witness described a moment when Carroll allegedly told her friend Lisa that an event had occurred that she believed was more than a memory and left a lasting impression. Birnbach characterized Carroll as emotional and unsettled, conveying that the experience was shocking and troubling for Carroll.
According to Birnbach, Carroll had spoken repeatedly about the incident and suggested that it would be unreasonable to expect others to dismiss the account. She described disbelief at the time, and the possibility that authorities might be warranted in light of Carroll’s claims.
During cross-examination, W. Perry Brandt, one of Trump’s attorneys, focused on Birnbach’s political views and prior remarks about Trump in a podcast she hosted from 2018 to 2021. Brandt read excerpts of transcripts in which Birnbach described Trump in strong terms, prompting questions about the reliability and context of those statements. Carroll’s side argued that such remarks did not contradict the core allegations being presented to the jury.
Also on the stand was Jessica Leeds, now 81, who testified during the 2016 campaign that Trump had groped her on a 1979 flight to New York. Leeds reaffirmed her accusation as testimony resumed.
Leeds described the encounter in straightforward terms, noting that Trump attempted to kiss and caress her and that she felt unwanted touching during the flight. The account contributed to the broader set of allegations discussed in the trial.
Throughout the proceedings, jurors received careful consideration of Carroll’s claims and the responses from Trump’s lawyers. The testimonies offered multiple perspectives on the alleged events and shaped the jury’s understanding of what Carroll described and what others corroborated.
The case is expected to include additional witnesses and documentary evidence to address whether the acts occurred as Carroll described and whether Trump is legally responsible under applicable civil law. The court has emphasized fair consideration of the evidence and adherence to procedural rules as the parties present their arguments.
As courtroom activity unfolds, observers in Canada and the United States have followed the case for its implications on public discourse, media coverage of sexual assault allegations, and the handling of such claims in high-profile civil litigation. Legal experts note that the outcome could influence future civil actions with similar elements and influence how sensitive testimony is treated in courts across North America.
As the trial progresses, both sides will continue to present witnesses and exhibits to establish a clear account of events, the credibility of the witnesses, and the legal standards guiding the jury’s deliberations. The process remains central to determining accountability and ensuring due process for all involved parties.
The proceedings have sparked broad public interest, extending beyond the courtroom to discussions about how sexual misconduct allegations are investigated, presented, and adjudicated in civil courts. While the questions before the jury are case-specific, the legal principles at stake resonate with many similar situations nationwide.
The outcome will depend on witness credibility, the sufficiency of corroborating evidence, and the ability of the parties to persuade jurors of their interpretation of events. As the trial advances, observers will seek clarity on what occurred, the context in which it happened, and the implications for the parties involved.
Both sides have pledged to present their strongest evidence to support their positions. The judge will continue to oversee proceedings to ensure a fair, orderly process, allowing jurors to evaluate the testimonies and reach a verdict based on the facts presented in court.