General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJudge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/ffr
(23,072 posts)Sogo
(5,715 posts)onecaliberal
(35,476 posts)After Donald Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, his legal team and his defenders lodged a frequent talking point.
Despite Carrolls claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse.
Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.
This was a rape claim, this was a rape case all along, and the jury rejected that made other findings, his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said outside the courthouse.
A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
The filing from Judge Lewis A. Kaplan came as Trumps attorneys have sought a new trial and have argued that the jurys $5 million verdict against Trump in the civil suit was excessive. The reason, they argue, is that sexual abuse could be as limited as the groping of a victims breasts.
Kaplan roundly rejected Trumps motion Tuesday, calling that argument entirely unpersuasive.
kimmylavin
(2,290 posts)His lawyer saying he didn't rape her, he only sexually assaulted her... that's a wild flex.
(Also complete BS, of course.)
muriel_volestrangler
(102,337 posts)and the judge has said it again:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/07/donald-trump-rape-language-e-jean-carroll
and again:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-cannot-challenge-writers-rape-claim-defamation-trial-judge-rules-2024-01-08/
The detail of his ruling - trigger warning, this is about the mechanics of rape:
As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of rape in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries,2 in some federal and state criminal statutes,3 and elsewhere.4 The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was raped within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump raped her as many people commonly understand the word rape. Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.
So why does this matter? It matters because Mr. Trump now contends that the jury's $2 million compensatory damages award for Ms. Carroll's sexual assault claim was excessive because the jury concluded that he had not raped Ms. Carroll.5 Its verdict, he says, could have been based upon no more than groping of [Ms. Carroll's] breasts through clothing or similar conduct, which is a far cry from rape.6 And while Mr. Trump is right that a $2 million award for such groping alone could well be regarded as excessive, that undermines rather than supports his argument. His argument is entirely unpersuasive.
This jury did not award Ms. Carroll more than $2 million for groping her breasts through her clothing, wrongful as that might have been. There was no evidence at all of such behavior. Instead, the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll's vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain and long lasting emotional and psychological harm. Mr. Trump's argument therefore ignores the bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury's verdict, and mistakenly focuses on the New York Penal Law definition of rape to the exclusion of the meaning of that word as it often is used in everyday life and of the evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html
Think. Again.
(17,115 posts)hlthe2b
(105,866 posts)pandr32
(12,087 posts)IronLionZion
(46,850 posts)It's not that complicated.
ShazzieB
(18,404 posts)As the article said, this is "a legal distinction without a real-world difference."
TSF and his bumbling legal team just basically implied that what TSF did to E. Jean was AOK and humky dory, just because of a technicality in the wording of the New York penal code.
Nice try, morons! Thank goodness the judge didn't fall for that lame ass claim.
Comfortably_Numb
(4,072 posts)Donald drumph is a rapist. Donald drumph is a rapist. Donald drumph is a rapist. Donald drumph is a rapist. Donald drumph is a rapist.