Posted on 03/05/2024 8:24:22 PM PST by bitt
Former President Trump demanded he receive a new trial after a jury ordered him to pay $83.3 million in advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan has previously rejected many of the arguments contained within Trump’s two separate post-trial motions, both filed Tuesday.
In particular, the former president took aim at how Kaplan, an appointee of former President Clinton, heavily restricted what Trump could tell jurors while on the witness stand.
Kaplan imposed the limitations after finding Trump liable for defamation prior to trial because of Carroll’s win in a separate lawsuit last year. January’s trial was limited to the issue of damages.
Trump’s attorneys pointed to an exchange ahead of Trump’s scheduled testimony where the judge asserted he wanted to know “everything (Trump) is going to say.” Kaplan had gone over each question and Trump’s intended responses in meticulous detail before jurors heard from Trump, cutting off the former president at times as he testified. Trump was on the stand for less than five minutes.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
p
Force her to come up with a specific time and place where the “sexy rape” occurred.
The whole episode has NOTHING to do with Justice.
That judge will reject Trump’s motion, but Trump probably had to file the motion before appealing.
And THAT is just one lie that is easily disproved; there are MANY others!
She’s a lunatic funded by a LinkedIn Epstein Island billionaire. It’s BS. We all know it.
Exactly so! I was just, yet once again, providing some hard, cold facts!
Good point. Was the jury allowed to hear testimony about this fact?
There's a LOT more about HOW that store and the other ELITE departments stores, in Manhattan work. I grew up in Manhattan, went to these stores, have family history with this one, and was still shopping at this one during the years she claims it happened. Unlike her and Biden, my memory is still not only sharp, but far better than the majority of most others. And I have previously posted ALL of the info to threads on this topic. Trust me, just these FACTS ( such as what such rooms look like, IN DETAIL, how the saleswoman NEVER leaves [ she either stays in the room, or is just outside it, by the door!], and the fact that men NEVER, no matter WHO they are, go into the room! ), easily refute the crazy story.
Well, even if the court heard witnesses, they might say that Trump bribed the store staff or threatened them, and the Trump hating NY jury might convict him anyway. The jury ignored the fact that Carroll didn’t know what year the alleged deed occurred.
But yes, the jury was chosen because all of them were/are TRUMP HATERS! I'm absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the voir dire made certain of that!
“Was the jury allowed to hear testimony about this fact?”
The first jury, or the second?
AFAIK the first jury would have been allowed to hear testimony about the setup at the store. More importantly, it would have been allowed to hear Trump testify that Carroll was lying. The problem is that Trump, on advice of his lawyer, didn’t testify. So the first jury heard only Carroll’s version. No surprise they ruled against Trump.
Trump now says he got bad legal advice. Yeah, he did — but it’s well-established law that an issue resolved by a jury is binding on future juries in cases with the same parties. Courts don’t want to keep re-litigating settled questions. That’s why, at the second trial, Trump wasn’t allowed to give his version of events.
Wrong; no jury heard anything at all about what I posted!
I concur, having been on the 7th floor many times for haute Cauture
Although I admit to spending most of my time on the 8th Floor eating truffles
Good luck with that. During her recitation of what exactly
happened to her, she has offered up three different years
when it could have happened.
1994, 95, & 96. How can a guy possibly come up with
an alibi, if the plaintiff gets that much leeway?
She also couldn’t remember what season it was, Spring,
Summer, Fall, or Winter.
I don’t think they were able to tell the jury what her
job was, a writer of pornography with all sorts of
twisted plots.
I don’t think the jury ever heard that she also claimed
the mayor of New York had done the same thing to her.
I doubt that they are aware, that the state had to
extend the statute of limitations so the trail (or
possibly the penalty phase) could take place.
This doesn’t seem to be a sound case at all to me.
She’ll have to re-watch that Law and Order episode to figure out the timeline.
Where do you shop?... K’Mart?
High end stores are a little different, especially 20yrs ago.
Seriously really?
Then why didn’t defense bring all that up?
Bullseye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.