Because it was Donald Trump.

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.

That seems to be why he lost, not because E. Jean Carrol established anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because it was Donald Trump. — NOS4A2

Yes, the jury were especially at risk because it was Donald Trump who was being tried. If he wasn't such a twat and if his supporters weren't such psychos then the jury wouldn't have been kept anonymous.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-face-anonymous-jury-high-profile-new-york-defamation-trial-2023-03-23/

Kaplan said the need for juror anonymity reflected the "unprecedented circumstances in which this trial will take place, including the extensive pretrial publicity and a very strong risk that jurors will fear harassment, unwanted invasions of their privacy, and retaliation."

...

In his decision, Kaplan cited Trump's March 18 call for protest if he were indicted in a Manhattan's district attorney case for covering up a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

Kaplan said Trump's reaction "has been perceived by some as an incitement to violence," and said some people charged over the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol "rightly or wrongly" attributed their actions to incitement by Trump.

The judge also said Trump has "repeatedly" attacked courts, judges, law enforcement and even individual jurors.

These, the judge said, included the forepersons of the grand jury looking into whether Trump tried to sway the 2020 election results in Georgia, and the jury at longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone's 2019 obstruction trial.

"If jurors' identities were disclosed, there would be a strong likelihood of unwanted media attention to the jurors, influence attempts, and/or of harassment or worse of jurors by supporters of Mr. Trump," Kaplan wrote.

Trump only has himself to blame.

That seems to be why he lost, not because E. Jean Carrol established anything beyond a reasonable doubt. — NOS4A2

In a civil trial the requirement is a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

That seems to be why he lost, not because E. Jean Carrol established anything beyond a reasonable doubt. — NOS4A2

The burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence in a civil trial, meaning she only needed to prove her claims were more likely than not.

Choosing not to show up is an important piece of evidence that the jury was able to consider. That was his strategy and his choice. That blame is on him.

Yes, the sordid fears of a New York judge take precedence over an individual’s right to an impartial jury.

Yes, the sordid fears of a New York judge take precedence over an individual’s right to an impartial jury. — NOS4A2

Anonymous doesn't mean not impartial.

I guess that’s why they went from rape to battery. It’s just more likely. Utterly bonkers justice system. But thanks for your expertise.

It doesn’t mean partial, either.

Incidentally, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23721313/kaplan-ruling-in-carroll-v-trump-jury.pdf

The trial of this case will begin on April 25, 2023. On March 11, 2023, the Court
directed the parties to file any objections to trying the case before an anonymous jury. Neither objected.

Don't you think the Access Hollywood tape and deposition also hurt Trump in the eyes of the jury?

So, Trump didn't object to an anonymous jury, didn't testify, missed the deadline for providing DNA evidence, and didn't offer his own defence witnesses.

There's no grand unjust conspiracy here @NOS4A2. He just lost.

I was replying to Nos when I asked why they took so long. He was claiming it was a conspiracy by Carrol and her friends. I understand why women don't report sexual abuse (or wait a long time).

It obviously did, which is nonsense because the access Hollywood tape occurred a decade later and was irrelevant.

I’m quite aware he lost. But the fact remains there is no evidence of his supposed crimes.

I’m quite aware he lost. But the fact remains there is no evidence of his supposed crimes. — NOS4A2

Clearly the jury disagreed. There was more evidence that he was guilty than there was evidence that Carroll and the others were lying.

It’s all a massive left wing conspiracy.

A guy who brags about walking in on teenager girls’ dressing rooms and grabbing women’s genitalia because, as a star, you can get away with it — who has multiple accusers over the years…Yeah, no way this jury is correct. Has to be a conspiracy.

Doesn’t matter though, he’ll still be the nominee.

It's irrelevant that Trump was on tape admitting he gropes and kisses women without asking them first?

Clearly the jury disagreed. There was more evidence that he was guilty than there was evidence that Carroll and the others were lying.

They disagreed with her rape accusation. So it’s clear they thought she was lying.

They disagreed with her rape accusation. So it’s clear they thought she was lying. — NOS4A2

Clearly they thought that either a) the evidence of what Trump did didn't satisfy the legal definition of rape or b) the evidence of rape wasn't a "preponderance" of evidence.

He was talking about the publicist, whom he didn’t grope and kiss directly after his comments.

Clearly they thought that either a) the evidence of what Trump did didn't satisfy the legal definition of rape or b) the evidence of rape wasn't a "preponderance" of evidence.

What evidence? There was no evidence of either rape or battery. But they went with one and not the other, for whatever reason.

What evidence? There was no evidence of either rape or battery. But they went with one and not the other, for whatever reason. — NOS4A2

I wasn't at the trial so I don't know. You'd have to ask the jury.

There was the claims of the accused, the access Hollywood tape, other accusers, and Trump’s deposition, none of which establish any rape or battery occurred.

You supported the system back when he'd never been convicted of anything. Now you're saying he was convicted because he's Trump. Have a little integrity, please.

The jury disagreed.

Your nagging is unwanted, Frank. Grow a pair.

Your nagging is unwanted, Frank. Grow a pair. — NOS4A2

So you choose to be like all the rest. No integrity. You stand for nothing. Jeese.

I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Perhaps you can show me.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

So great.