Carroll v. Trump

Background

This opinion addresses Jean Carroll’s motion to limit evidence before the damages trial in her defamation case against Donald J. Trump. The court stated that an earlier jury had found that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll and defamed her in an October 2022 statement, awarding her $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. After that verdict and related proceedings, the court granted Carroll partial summary judgment on liability in this case, relying largely on collateral estoppel—a rule that prevents a party from relitigating facts already decided. The remaining trial would concern damages from Trump’s June 2019 statements.

Rulings on excluded subjects

The court barred Trump from commenting on or eliciting evidence about Carroll’s choice of counsel or her counsel’s activities outside the litigation. It found that Trump had not shown how those subjects would demonstrate that Carroll failed to reduce the effects of the alleged defamation.

The court also precluded evidence or argument about litigation funding. It concluded that the subject had little value after limited discovery and that any possible value concerning Carroll’s credibility was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice and a time-consuming collateral dispute.

The court excluded all testimony, argument, commentary, or references concerning DNA. The court reasoned that DNA was principally relevant to whether the sexual assault occurred, an issue already resolved, and that discussing the absence of a DNA comparison could unfairly suggest that the assault had not been established.

The court precluded both parties from offering or mentioning evidence about Carroll’s past romantic relationships, sexual disposition, and prior sexual experiences. It found that those subjects had little relevance to the reputational and emotional damages allegedly caused by the 2019 defamation, were remote in time, and risked unfair prejudice and jury confusion.

The court further barred Trump from presenting evidence or argument suggesting that he did not sexually abuse Carroll, that Carroll fabricated her account, or that she had a political, financial, mental-health, or other motive to fabricate it. The court also barred arguments inconsistent with its prior ruling that Trump made the statements with constitutional actual malice, meaning knowledge that a statement was false or reckless disregard for whether it was false. The court clarified that Trump could offer some of Carroll’s public statements to argue that she contributed to reputational or emotional harm, but he could not use those statements to suggest that she fabricated her account or to inquire into her motives for making it.

Witnesses and other evidence

The court declined at that stage to exclude Trump’s proposed witnesses, including Andrew Haskell, Sarah Lazin, Lisa Birnbach, and Carol Martin. The witnesses could testify if they had personal knowledge relevant to damages from the 2019 defamation. Neither party, however, could question any witness about the underlying sexual assault or alleged fabrication. The court expressly denied this branch of Carroll’s motion.

The court did not decide in advance whether testimony from Natasha Stoynoff and Jessica Leeds, or related excerpts from Trump’s 2016 campaign statements, would be admitted. It recognized that the evidence could have some relevance to punitive damages and Trump’s state of mind, but also identified risks of unfair prejudice, delay, and jury confusion. The court left the issue open for possible renewal during trial.

The court admitted the Access Hollywood video. It concluded that a jury could find the video relevant to Trump’s common-law malice—his improper or malicious state of mind in making the statements—and to punitive damages. The court found that the video could provide evidence about Trump’s views toward women and his state of mind when he later denied Carroll’s allegations and disparaged her. It rejected the argument that the video should be excluded merely because it might hurt Trump’s case, finding that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the risks identified in the evidence rule governing unfair prejudice and related concerns.

Disposition

The court granted Carroll’s letter motion to the extent that it barred the specified evidence and arguments and ordered that the Access Hollywood video would be received in evidence. The motion was denied in all other respects without prejudice to renewal during trial concerning Stoynoff, Leeds, and the related campaign excerpts. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan signed the order on January 9, 2024.