Donald Trump added another turning point to his controversial legal saga. A New York jury of six men and three women ruled in a civil case that the former president, who occupied the Oval Office and remains a leading candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination, must compensate E. Jean Carroll with about five million dollars for defaming her and for sexual misconduct she alleges occurred in 1996.
In civil cases there is no guilty or innocent verdict in the criminal sense. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence, a lower bar than beyond a reasonable doubt. After a two-week trial, the jury reached a verdict in less than three hours of deliberation, signaling consensus on Carroll’s claims.
Carroll’s case is one of many sexual misconduct allegations leveled against Trump, but it marks the first time a civil jury has weighed in against him. The decision is expected to have a significant impact on his 2024 campaign trajectory.
Case
The trial unfolded before Judge Lewis Kaplan over two weeks, featuring testimony from 11 witnesses who were called by Carroll and her legal team. They argued that Trump’s behavior toward Carroll bordered on stalking and involved coercive conduct. Carroll, who is now 79, along with two other women who accused Trump of inappropriate sexual behavior, sought to reinforce the perception of a pattern of conduct by the former real estate magnate.
Carroll testified about meeting Trump in a store, engaging in casual conversation, and joking about buying underwear as a gift for a friend. She described how the interaction seemed ordinary until it escalated, with Trump allegedly cornering her in a locker room, closing the door, and pushing her against a wall. She testified that he touched her, and she described acts that she described as invasive and non-consensual.
After the incident, Carroll did not report it to the police, but she shared her account with supportive friends. One witness confirmed that Carroll was advised not to report the incident. Carroll described the long-term impact on her life, noting she has struggled to pursue romantic or sexual relationships since the event and missed opportunities for intimate connections and shared experiences with loved ones.
Carroll filed a defamation lawsuit in 2019 after Trump publicly dismissed her claims as “nonsense.” Although an earlier case faced obstacles, a later filing opened a window provided by a state law designed to address past sexual misconduct allegations, allowing this case to proceed in New York.
Defense
The defense did not call witnesses and focused on cross-examining Carroll’s account, suggesting motives such as money, status, or political reasons behind the allegations. Trump’s lead attorney, Joe Tacopina, challenged Carroll’s memory of specifics, questioned why she did not report the incident sooner, and argued that the defense narrative portrayed her as exploiting others’ pain. Tacopina described the case as a “surreal” presentation and characterized Carroll’s story as a work of fiction.
He argued that the defense’s strategy was to undermine the credibility of Carroll’s testimony rather than offer an alternative factual account, contending that the case should be viewed through the lens of public perception and media dynamics rather than personal truth alone.
Trump in his own words
Trump did not testify during this phase of the trial, though excerpts from a previous deposition were shown. A video from October highlighted inconsistencies, including a moment where Trump seemed to confuse Carroll with his former wife. The defense argued that Trump was not the type Carroll described and noted his pushback against the idea of an attack being carried out by him despite contradicting video footage referenced in the proceedings.
During the deposition, Trump defended his past remarks and reiterated that his comments about women had often been framed by others. The defense used these videos to argue that Carroll’s account was inconsistent and that the public record did not support the alleged assault as described by Carroll. Yet the jury did not find in her favor on those grounds.
Impact on political career
The central question remains: what does this verdict mean for Trump’s political ambitions? Recent commentary and polling underscore the tension between legal scrutiny and public support for the former president. While Trump remains a leading contender for the Republican nomination, he trails Ron DeSantis by a notable margin in some surveys. The ongoing investigations in multiple jurisdictions have created a complex landscape for his campaign, with potential legal costs weighing on his political calculations.
Analysts note that voters already have formed strong impressions of Trump’s character, and the Carroll case is unlikely to dramatically shift most voters’ views. However, legal developments like this matter in the broader dynamics of donor confidence, campaign strategy, and the ability to mitigate reputational risk as the election season progresses.
Observers emphasize that the political environment remains highly polarized, with supporters viewing the legal challenges as political persecution and opponents focusing on accountability and legal consequences. The coming months will reveal how this verdict shapes fundraising, endorsements, and the overall momentum of Trump’s campaign as it navigates ongoing investigations and public scrutiny.