NEW YORK, NY – Former President Donald Trump is requesting a judge to either significantly reduce the $83.3 million jury award or grant a new trial in the defamation case brought against him by E. Jean Carroll. Trump argues that the judge overseeing the case, Judge Lewis Kaplan, wrongly prohibited him from defending himself during his brief testimony and that this warrants a new trial.
In court filings, Trump’s lawyers assert that Kaplan erred in stopping Trump from testifying about “his own state of mind” and in providing an “erroneous jury instruction on the definition of common-law malice.” They argue that the jury should have been instructed to find that it was Trump’s “sole, exclusive desire to harm” Carroll.
Trump’s lawyers further claim that Kaplan’s decision to limit the scope of Trump’s testimony influenced the jury’s verdict, and therefore, a new trial is warranted. Before the trial began, Kaplan restricted Trump’s testimony, preventing him from denying raping Carroll or making the defamatory statements, as a judgment regarding this had already been determined by a different jury in 2023. Trump was only able to answer a limited number of questions.
The new legal effort by Trump comes as he asks Kaplan for more time to post the bond, which is due shortly. Trump has requested 30 days after the judge rules on post-trial briefs to provide evidence that he can afford the payment, while Carroll opposes the request, claiming Trump has not provided any such evidence.
During the trial, one particular exchange involving Trump’s testimony has now become a focal point. When asked if he ever instructed anyone to hurt Carroll in his statements, Trump replied, “No. I just wanted to defend myself, my family, and frankly, the presidency.” Carroll’s attorney objected, and the judge struck Trump’s response from the record, which Trump’s lawyers argue was an error.
Trump’s attorneys have also reiterated arguments made during the trial, claiming that Carroll failed to connect Trump’s statements to the negative and harassing messages she received after going public about being sexually assaulted by Trump in the mid-1990s. However, the judge had previously rejected this argument.
Additionally, Trump’s lawyers believe that the jury’s award was excessive when compared to other verdicts and that it should be reduced. They argue that the $7.3 million awarded for compensatory damages should be significantly reduced to $125,000 or less, as the harm suffered by Carroll was “garden variety.” They also contend that the $11 million awarded to repair Carroll’s reputation is excessive when compared to previous verdicts, including the $1.7 million awarded by a different jury in 2023 for reputation repair. Finally, Trump’s lawyers argue that the $65 million in punitive damages is grossly excessive and should be reduced to a 1-to-1 ratio with compensatory damages.
Carroll, in opposition to Trump’s attempts to lower the awards, dismissed one of his arguments as “laughable” and emphasized that the evidence shows that Trump’s defamation of her increased after the 2023 verdict as he continued to repeat the defamatory comments.
This legal battle between Trump and Carroll continues to unfold in the courts, as both sides present their arguments for a new trial or a reduction in the awarded damages. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the defamation claim against the former president, setting a precedent for future similar cases.