On Monday, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the civil jury that President Donald Trump had to pay $ 83.3 million to the long -time journalist E. Jean Carroll for defamation on social media after her accusations.
The panel of three judges of the second Court of Appeal dismissed Trump’s appeal that claimed that the damage was excessive and that the new court proceedings were guaranteed with regard to the expansion of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity.
The court concluded that Trump’s “extraordinary and unprecedented” attacks on Carroll justified the steep price. “Given the unique and serious facts of this case, we concluded that the price for criminal damage did not exceed the limits of adequacy,” he said.
Carroll’s legal team corresponds to
Carroll’s lawyer Robert Kaplan welcomed this decision. “Previously, the United States Court of Appeal today confirmed that in a comprehensive 70 -page decision that E. Jean Carroll was telling the truth and that President Donald Trump was not,” Kaplan said. She added that Carroll faced threats during the legal process and “looking forward to ending the appeal process”.
Background
The decision concerns the other of two slander awards resulting from Trump’s repeated attacks on Carroll after accused him of sexual assault in her memory 2019. In memory, Carroll described a 1996 meeting at Bergdorf Goodman on Manhattan, who allegedly escalated in violent sexual assaults.
The first jury, in 2023, found Trump responsible for sexual assault, but determined that this act did not meet the legal definition of rape in New York. This court resulted in a valuation of $ 5 million, which covered both the attack and Trump’s public statement that rejected it.
The second test, which focuses solely on further damage of defamation, was granted by Carroll $ 83.3 million. During the court proceedings, Trump was forbidden to argue his innocence of an alleged attack before the jury, as this problem was solved by the first judgment.
The court supports damages
On Monday, the Court of Appeal ruled that the court judge had acted reasonably in limiting the scope of the second court and that the valuation of the jury damage was proportionate to the “extraordinary and serious facts of this case”.
(Tagstotranslate) Donald Trump
