E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
2024 WL [Pending] (2024)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 415, evidence of a defendant's prior sexual assaults is admissible in a civil sexual assault case if a jury could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior acts occurred, regardless of whether the prior acts met federal jurisdictional requirements regarding location.

Facts:

In 1996, advice columnist E. Jean Carroll encountered Donald Trump at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan.
After engaging in banter about buying a gift, Trump and Carroll entered a dressing room in the lingerie department.
Once inside, Trump shut the door, shoved Carroll against the wall, forcibly kissed her, and inserted his fingers into her vagina without her consent.
Carroll fled the store and immediately reported the assault to two friends, Lisa Birnbach and Carol Martin, but did not file a police report.
Decades later, in 2019, Carroll published a book detailing the assault.
In October 2022, Trump posted a statement on his 'Truth Social' platform calling Carroll's account a 'con job,' a 'Hoax,' and a 'lie,' asserting that she was 'not [his] type.'
Carroll subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking damages for the sexual battery and for defamation based on the Truth Social post.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff sued Defendant in New York state court for defamation (Carroll I); the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiff filed a second action (Carroll II) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging sexual battery under the Adult Survivors Act and defamation.
The District Court issued pretrial evidentiary rulings admitting testimony from other accusers and the 'Access Hollywood' tape, while excluding evidence of litigation funding and DNA.
A jury found the Defendant liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding the Plaintiff $5 million in damages.
The District Court denied the Defendant's motion for a new trial.
The Defendant appealed the judgment and evidentiary rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting testimony from two other accusers and the 'Access Hollywood' recording as evidence of prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 415?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. The Court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the evidence of prior sexual misconduct because it was relevant, probative, and met the statutory requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Court affirmed that under Rule 415, evidence of other sexual assaults is admissible to show propensity and to assess credibility in 'swearing matches.' The Court adopted the 'Huddleston' standard, meaning the trial judge does not need to find the prior act happened by a preponderance of the evidence, but only that a jury could reasonably make such a finding. Regarding the specific evidence: 1) Jessica Leeds's testimony about an airplane assault in the 1970s was admissible as an 'attempt' to commit sexual contact prohibited by federal law. 2) Natasha Stoynoff's testimony about a forcible kiss at Mar-a-Lago in 2005 was admissible as an attempt; the Court rejected Trump's argument that the conduct must occur on federal land to be 'prohibited by' 18 U.S.C. chapter 109A, holding that the Rule refers to the type of conduct, not the location. 3) The 'Access Hollywood' tape was admissible under Rule 415 as evidence of prior admitted assaults and under Rule 404(b) to show a modus operandi (pattern) of non-consensual kissing and groping. The Court further held that the district court did not err in excluding defense evidence regarding litigation funding and DNA, finding these issues irrelevant or likely to cause undue delay and confusion.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the broad scope of Federal Rules of Evidence 413-415, which are designed to allow propensity evidence in sexual assault cases—a major exception to the general rule against such evidence. By adopting the Huddleston standard for these rules, the Second Circuit aligns with sister circuits, lowering the barrier for admitting "me too" witnesses; the judge acts only as a gatekeeper for reasonableness, not as a fact-finder. Crucially, the Court's interpretation of the phrase "conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 109A" clarifies that evidence of prior acts does not need to meet federal jurisdictional elements (like occurring on federal property or the high seas) to be admissible. It only needs to match the substantive description of the prohibited conduct. This prevents defendants from using technical jurisdictional arguments to block evidence of similar past behavior.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump (2024)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"