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.
“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.