Carroll v. Trump

Background

E. Jean Carroll moved in limine, meaning before trial, for an order adopting evidentiary rulings from an earlier related proceeding, excluding Robert J. Fisher as Donald J. Trump’s proposed rebuttal expert, and deciding several additional trial-evidence requests. The court stated that the earlier evidentiary rulings applied here, except for the earlier proceeding’s analysis of whether the case was based on an alleged sexual assault. This case included a claim concerning an alleged sexual assault, while the earlier proceeding involved only a defamation claim.

Robert J. Fisher’s proposed testimony

Carroll planned to call Professor Ashlee Humphreys to testify about the spread of Trump’s October 12, 2022 statement, its effect on Carroll’s reputation and “person brand,” and the means and cost of repairing any reputational harm. Trump proposed calling Fisher to rebut Humphreys.

The court explained that rebuttal testimony must be intended solely to contradict or respond to the other party’s expert testimony. It found that some portions of Fisher’s proposed testimony could potentially qualify as rebuttal, but that his opinions about Humphreys’s qualifications, legal issues, evidence, and other matters were not proper expert testimony. The court then examined the portions that arguably addressed Humphreys’s opinions.

The court found Fisher’s proposed opinions unreliable under the federal evidence rule governing expert testimony. In particular, Fisher concluded that Carroll had benefited overall from the public dispute, but he did not explain what “peer accepted procedures” or “principles of negative communications” he used or how they led to his conclusion. His review consisted of litigation documents, six media articles, and limited internet research. The court found that this material did not reliably establish whether Carroll received more positive, negative, or neutral coverage, or whether she experienced a net benefit. The court likewise found that Fisher did not explain how his experience supported his criticisms of Humphreys’s reputation-repair proposal and that much of his proposed testimony involved matters jurors could assess without expert assistance.

Accordingly, the court precluded Fisher from testifying at trial as a rebuttal expert witness.

DNA evidence

Carroll sought to bar testimony or commentary about DNA evidence. Trump argued that he should be able to cross-examine Carroll about public statements concerning whether his DNA was on a dress.

The court found that the available evidence did not establish whether the male DNA on the dress came from Trump. It also noted that Trump had not provided a DNA sample for comparison and that neither party intended to present scientific DNA evidence at trial. The court concluded that questioning Carroll about the statements could create an unfair inference that the absence of scientific DNA evidence proved that the alleged sexual assault did not occur. Addressing the issue would also require substantial additional evidence and could confuse the jury. Applying the evidence rule allowing exclusion when the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, delay, or wasted time substantially outweighs probative value, the court excluded all evidence and argument by either party concerning DNA.

Proposed witnesses and disclosure

Carroll sought to preclude five witnesses Trump listed in the joint pretrial order: David Haskell, Elizabeth Dyssegaard, Erin Hobday, Laurie Abraham, and Sarah Lazin. She argued that Trump had failed to disclose them as required by the federal discovery rules and that the delay prevented her from deposing them.

The court ruled that Trump was not required to disclose four of the witnesses—Haskell, Dyssegaard, Abraham, and Lazin—or that any violation concerning them would have been harmless. Carroll had previously identified those four as people with knowledge related to the allegations, and the circumstances gave Carroll sufficient, though “just barely,” notice that Trump might call them. The court therefore denied Carroll’s request to preclude those four witnesses.

The court reached a different conclusion regarding Hobday. Neither party had disclosed Hobday as a person with relevant knowledge. Carroll had mentioned Hobday during a deposition only as the managing editor of File magazine who advised Carroll that her contract was being terminated. The court found that this did not show Carroll should have expected Hobday to be called by Trump. Because Trump’s failure to disclose Hobday prevented Carroll from deposing her or knowing that she might need to do so, the court precluded Hobday from testifying at trial.

Other evidentiary rulings and disposition

The court granted the uncontested requests incorporated from the earlier related proceeding. In its conclusion, the court stated that Carroll’s motion was granted to the extent that:

- Carroll’s prior consistent statements to Mss. Birnbach and Martin about Trump’s alleged sexual assault were admissible; - testimony by Mss. Stoynoff and Leeds about their experiences involving Trump was within the federal evidence rules concerning evidence of other sexual assaults or sexual behavior and would not be excluded under the rule balancing probative value against unfair prejudice; - Trump was precluded from giving or eliciting testimony concerning information allegedly known to people he had not disclosed under the federal discovery rules; - both parties were precluded from testimony, argument, commentary, or reference concerning DNA evidence; - Trump was precluded from cross-examining or eliciting evidence about Stephanie Grisham’s prior misdemeanor convictions, unrelated pending lawsuit, and use of prescription medication; - Trump was precluded from commenting on or eliciting evidence concerning Carroll’s choice of counsel or her counsel’s activities outside the litigation between Carroll and Trump; - Fisher was precluded from testifying as a rebuttal expert; and - Trump was precluded from calling Hobday as a trial witness.

The court denied the motion to the extent Carroll sought to preclude Dyssegaard, Abraham, Lazin, and Haskell from testifying. The overall disposition was that Carroll’s motion in limine was granted in part and denied in part.