I have no interest in the sexual lives of politicians. — NOS4A2

I think most people would agree that sexual assault says something about a persons character.

There is no evidence. Her claims of sexual assault can be discarded along with her accusations of rape. Believing such accusations without evidence says a lot about character.

Imagine feeling obliged to defend this degenerate. — Mikie

Some people find his performances merely laughable, others find them merely repugnant. Another false dichotomy.

There is no evidence. Her claims of sexual assault can be discarded along with her accusations of rape. Believing such accusations without evidence says a lot about character. — NOS4A2

A jury has convicted. Now miscarriages of justice can happen, but at this stage, your claim that there is no evidence itself requires evidence in the form of a detailed rebuttal of the prosecution case.

There is no evidence that there is no evidence; on the contrary, the conviction is positive evidence that there is convincing evidence, because a jury has been convinced. You have to provide evidence that they have been corrupted or misled, that will convince us otherwise, if you want to be taken seriously.

Americans have the right to an impartial jury. That’s why during voir dire jurors are often questioned to decide whether they can be fair and impartial. They weren’t in this case, and in an anti-Trump city. It was corrupted from the very beginning.

She didn’t know when the date was, meaning no alibi could be established. They wouldn’t accept Trump’s DNA, despite finding male DNA on the dress. Statute of limitations have long passed. The alleged incident is almost 30 years old and now conveniently starts after Trump mentions his candidacy.

Give me one reason why I should believe any of it.

Give me one reason why I should believe any of it. — NOS4A2

No. you give me one reason to believe that the jury and the justice system and now the whole city is so corrupt as to be completely unbelievable and totally ignored. Everyone in the whole world can be convicted in your mind except Trump. Bizarre.

That’s because I know you cannot name one reason. You don’t have any reason.

That’s because I know you cannot name one reason. You don’t have any reason. — NOS4A2

Of course I don't, you have already convicted me of joining the conspiracy against Trump. :rofl:

There is no evidence. Her claims of sexual assault can be discarded along with her accusations of rape. Believing such accusations without evidence says a lot about character. — NOS4A2

He practically confessed to it in the deposition, saying something like ‘*stars* have been sexually assaulting women for millions of years, unfortunately or fortunately’, and he regards himself as a star.

There was evidence. Two of her friends testified she told her it happened right afterwards. Is your claim that they were both in on it? That they would risk a possible perjury conviction? That Carroll made the whole thing up and then told her friends to add some verisimilitude to her story and then waited years and years? That seems very farfetched.

I think they were all in on it. None of them can remember the year it happened. The supposed episode never appears in E. Jean Carrol’s diary. None of them spoke about it until 2019. They all hate the man.

It’s not far fetched in clown world.

None of them can remember the year it happened. — NOS4A2

I don't remember what year I was given morphine and underwent surgery. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, because it did. I remember it vividly. I have the scar to prove it.

I think they were all in on it. — NOS4A2

Why did they wait so long?

You can prove it in court. The scars, the medical records, the witnesses. They’re probably all there. Supposing there is medical malpractice, would you wait 30 years to accuse someone?

Exactly.

The scars, the medical records, the witnesses. They’re probably all there. — NOS4A2

Sure, but you were implying that her not knowing the year is evidence that she made it up. I'm simply giving you an example of how that's a non sequitur. People can forget which year traumatic events happen.

You can prove it in court. — NOS4A2

So could she, and she did, hence Trump being found liable.

Supposing there is medical malpractice, would you wait 30 years to accuse someone? — NOS4A2

Probably not, as I'd have no reason not to. But I can understand why someone wouldn't want to take someone to court for being sexually assaulted. I know a few people who have confided in being victimised in this way but who never reported it, myself included.

See also this.

Carroll replied that at the time, she was ashamed of what she alleges happened. She later added that she was mindful of Trump’s power and connections in New York and “didn’t think police would take me seriously.”

Research has repeatedly found that rapes and sexual assaults are among the types of violent crime least likely to be reported to police. An annual U.S. crime victimization survey found that less than 23% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported in 2021 and 2020, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

...

Carroll has testified that she spoke out because of the #MeToo movement, which gained prominence in 2017.

So again it's a non sequitur to infer that she's a liar.

It's evidence she doesn't have a case and one of the reasons why we have statute of limitations. She neither remembers the date nor wrote about the episode in her diary.

There was no evidence of any battery, and certainly no rape, like she claims.

She was funded by a democrat mega-donor. She just released a book. The man she hates is running for president. There is plenty of incentives beyond justice for her actions.

Why did they wait so long? — RogueAI

I'm not a NY lawyer, but from the little research I did, the statute of limitations on personal injury matters is 3 years. Whether it's less than that for intentional torts like rape, I don't know, but we can assume the statute intially expired in the late 1990s because the incident occurred allegedly in 1996.

In 2022, New York created a 1 year look back statute for adults who allege they were previously raped but did not bring their actions within the applicable period back when it occurred. I suppose the reasoning is that it is felt that in years past society was not as receptive to such claims and women were intimidated from bringing them, but in today's society women feel more empowered to bring these claims.

So, this answers two questions:

1. This claim was not brought outside the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations was extended in 2022 to allow these sorts of actions.

2. She waited to bring the claim because she was fearful of bringing her claim in the mid 1990s and she then was not provided a second chance to bring her claim until 2022 when the new law was passed.

As to whether the extension of the statute of limitations is "unfair" is something you can argue, but why? The criminal rape statute of limitaitons is unlimited, so I'm not sure why when it comes to depriving someone of their liberty there is no statute of limitaitons, but there should be one when it comes to seeking money damages isn't clear.

She was funded by a democrat mega-donor. She just released a book. The man she hates is running for president. There is plenty of incentives beyond justice for her actions. — NOS4A2

Wouldn't all that have been argued to the jury? Apparently they rejected it.

As far as I know the judge didn't allow any of it, including the admission of Trump's DNA to compare to the male DNA found on the dress.

If you are a lawyer, Hanover, what is your opinion on anonymous juries and the 6th amendment?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/15/trump-e-jean-carroll-defamation-lawsuit-dna

Donald Trump missed his chance to use his DNA to try to prove he did not rape the writer E Jean Carroll, a federal judge said on Wednesday, clearing a potential roadblock to an April trial.

The judge, Lewis A Kaplan, rejected the 11th-hour offer by Trump’s legal team to provide a DNA sample to rebut claims Carroll first made publicly in a 2019 book.

Kaplan said lawyers for Trump and Carroll had more than three years to make DNA an issue in the case and both chose not to do so.

He said it would almost surely delay the trial scheduled to start on 25 April to reopen the DNA issue four months after the deadline passed to litigate concerns over trial evidence and weeks before trial.

Trump’s lawyers did not immediately comment. Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, declined to comment.

Carroll’s lawyers have sought Trump’s DNA for three years to compare it with stains found on the dress Carroll wore the day she says Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in late 1995 or early 1996. Analysis of DNA on the dress concluded it did contain traces of an unknown man’s DNA.

No sperm cells were found in the DNA on the dress so comparing the DNA wouldn't prove anything.

If you are a lawyer, Hanover, what is your opinion on anonymous juries and the 6th amendment? — NOS4A2

I'm not a lawyer but the 6th Amendment applies to criminal trials, not civil.

It would prove that the DNA wasn't Trump's, that it was some other person's DNA.

Then why would they have voir dire in civil cases?

Then why would they have voir dire in civil cases? — NOS4A2

Because of the 7th Amendment?

Edit: Although it doesn't apply to States, but many States choose to follow it anyway.

So then why was it not allowed in this case?

So then why was it not allowed in this case? — NOS4A2

Because it doesn't apply to States, although most States choose to follow it to some extent. In this case the judge ruled that the danger posed to the jury warranted them remaining anonymous.

You'll have to explain to me the specific limitations other than not knowing the jurors' names that occurred during the voir dire process. Not knowing their names and addresses isn't a very significant limitation, especially if it has to be balanced against the jurors being intimidated by external influences.

In my cases, I learn of the jurors names when they walk into the courtroom, and those names and addresses give me no important information.

My understanding is that anonymous jurors are also used in criminal cases, particularly those involving organized crime.

What are we theorizing occurred that wouldn't have occurred if we knew their names and addresses and how do we theorize that was helpful to the Plaintiff and not the Defendant? It seems we're going a long way to invalidate a verdict against a rapist.

One reason I would have found against him was because he decided not show up. Silence can be used against you in a civil trial. It's hard defending an empty chair.