Or jury tampering? I'll defer to Joyce. She's the attorney. (Former federal prosecutor.)
A department store manager at the time testified:
E. Jean herself testified today. She says it all started with flirtation on both their parts and ended with Trump raping her in a dressing room. She says she hasn't been able to have a romantic relationship or sex since.
Every woman who's ever been accosted understands that.
UPDATE 02:55 pm:
Adam Klasfeld is a good one to follow live-tweeting the trial.
UPDATE 06:11 pm: Eric Trump's tweet via MSN:
"Jean Carroll's legal battle against my father is allegedly being FUNDED by political activist Reid Hoffman (co-founder of Linkedin)," Eric Trump said in a tweet. "A civil lawsuit, being funded by a billionaire, with no direct involvement in the case, out of pure hatred, spite or fear of a formidable candidate, is an embarrassment to our country, should be illegal, and tells you everything you need to know about the case at hand."
Not sure which came first, the judge's ruling or Eric's tweet, but I think it was the judge's ruling.
The judge took Trump's derogatory social media postings seriously, telling his lawyer Joe Tacopina, "If I were in your shoes, I’d be having a conversation with your client." Later on he added, "there are some relevant United States statutes here and somebody on your side ought to be thinking about them,” in a not particularly subtle reference to the array of federal statutes that criminalize obstruction of justice, including the broad prohibition in 18 USC 1512 against even attempting to tamper with a witness, victim or informant, and other provisions that apply to jurors. While Trump’s conduct here probably doesn’t cross that line, the Judge is putting him on notice, early.
[...]
Deposition testimony is wide-ranging and often goes beyond the bounds of what will be admissible at trial. The parties may acquire evidence in discovery that a judge ultimately rules isn’t admissible. The governing rules in federal court are federal rules of evidence 402 and 404(b).
[...]
The judge has the discretion to exclude relevant evidence if it’s cumulative—evidence of something that has already been overwhelmingly established. But the part of the rule, 403, which explains when relevant evidence can be excluded, that comes into play most often is a provision that permits a judge to exclude relevant evidence when it’s more likely to be unfairly prejudicial than probative.
[...]
Trump’s lawyers wanted a ruling about whether they would be able to introduce evidence about Carroll’s past that painted her in a negative light, including evidence about her relationship with her second husband, John Johnson. Carroll testified about the relationship in her deposition, and there was some violence in the marriage. Trump’s lawyers wanted to introduce evidence that Johnson, who was Black, was provoked to violence when Carroll called him an ape. The judge, Lewis Kaplan, said that while they could get into the fighting, they could not get into the reason for it, because “it is a subject on which the unfair prejudicial effect outrageously outweighs any probative value, to a mixed-race jury in New York.”
[...]
The jury also won’t hear that George Conway, estranged husband of former Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway, was the one who connected Carroll with her lawyer Roberta (“Robbie”) Kaplan following a party at podcaster and writer Molly Jong Fast’s Upper East Side apartment. Nor will they hear that Kaplan’s firm received some funding that covered “certain costs and fees in connection with the firm’s work on Carroll’s behalf” from billionaire Democratic Party donor Reid Hoffman’s PAC. Kaplan advised the judge that Carroll didn’t personally communicate with the nonprofit organization or its financial supporters. In other words, none of this is relevant to the issues of whether Trump defamed or raped Carroll.
[...]
So while we’re likely to hear talking points from Trump’s camp about how an unfair judge excluded important evidence, now you understand the rules and why Judge Kaplan ruled the way he did here.
[...]
Trump’s lawyers are likely to appeal all of these rulings if the jury finds against him. He’ll try to get any verdict overturned, claiming the judge made reversible errors about the admissibility of evidence. There are standards of review on appeal that appellate courts use to assess the decisions made by trial judges. Decisions about the admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of a trial judge, and they will only be reversed on appeal if the judge abuses their discretion.
Joyce Vance
No comments:
Post a Comment