President Donald Trump has met another setback in his legal battle as a federal appeals court rejected his request to rehear an appeal regarding a jury’s verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming columnist E. Jean Carroll.
With an 8-2 decision from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Trump’s avenue for continuing this legal challenging effort now lies solely with the U.S. Supreme Court, as The Hill reports.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered its ruling, further solidifying the jury’s decision involving allegations against Trump from the mid-1990s.
The jury had previously concluded that Trump was liable for both sexual abuse and defamation against Carroll. Consequently, Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages.
Several challenges raised
The president’s appeal raised several challenges, notably citing the inclusion of evidence he claimed was inadmissible. Among this evidence was the controversial Access Hollywood tape, alongside other testimonies that he argued should not have been admitted. Trump’s legal team contended that these pieces of evidence swayed the jury unjustly.
Another focal point of Trump’s appeal was his claim regarding the financial backers behind Carroll’s legal fees. In his view, the fact that tech mogul Reid Hoffman partly funded Carroll’s legal expenses should have been disclosed to the jury, but the judge deemed this information inadmissible during the trial.
Notably, two judges appointed by Trump, Steven Menashi and Michael Park, dissented in the decision, casting doubts on the trial’s evidentiary rules. They highlighted concerns over the trial’s process and its adherence to standard evidentiary protocols.
Critiques pour in
Despite the divided opinions among the judges, the majority reached a consensus, reaffirming the previous verdict against Trump. Of the 13 eligible judges to vote, 10 did so, with 8 ruling against Trump and 2 in dissent. Three judges chose to recuse themselves without offering any explanation.
The dissenting opinion expressed skepticism regarding the reliability of the character evidence presented. The judge at issue stated, “The result was a jury verdict based on impermissible character evidence and few reliable facts.” His dissent reflected the concern that under typical evidentiary standards, a different outcome might have been possible.
In response to the court’s decision, Trump’s legal team maintained its stance, characterizing the lawsuit as politically driven. A spokesperson for Trump emphasized widespread public support for the former president, citing a desire to end the perceived “political weaponization” of the legal system. The spokesperson expressed confidence in Trump’s eventual success and reiterated his mission to “Make America Great Again.”
Further steps awaited
Carroll expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, along with her attorney, Robbie Kaplan. In a statement, they underscored the failure of Trump’s continued legal maneuvers, reaffirming his accountability for sexual assault and defamation as determined by two separate juries.
Even as this ruling presents another hurdle for Trump, it does not mark the end of his legal efforts. As Trump considers taking his case to the Supreme Court, another consequential case looms for him regarding Carroll, one in which he has been ordered to pay $83.3 million in defamation damages. Oral arguments for this separate appeal are expected to take place on June 24.
U.S. Circuit Judge Myrna Pérez, explaining the court’s decision, highlighted the specific circumstances that merit a rehearing, stating, “Simply re-litigating a case is not an appropriate use of the en banc procedure.” She further reinforced the court’s stance on reserving collective consideration for only the most critical legal questions or conflicts with appellate precedent.
This development signifies a continued phase of legal battles for Trump, as he seeks to overturn the verdicts and maintain his stance against what he terms as “liberal lawfare.” The road ahead reveals a complex legal landscape, especially now that the Supreme Court may become the ultimate arbiter in determining the outcome of his appeal endeavors.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Mae Slater
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.conservativejournalreview.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
