In a recent verdict, a jury in New York City has ruled that Trump must pay an extra $83 million in damages to Carroll. She is a former columnist for Elle magazine and has accused him of assaulting her in a changing room of a Manhattan department store back in the 1990s. This additional amount is for falsely accusing her of lying about the assault. In a previous ruling in May, a jury found Trump guilty of assault and ordered him to pay Carroll $5 million. Despite the verdicts, Trump continues to maintain his innocence and denies any wrongdoing in the alleged assault.
On Tuesday, Habba, the attorney representing Trump in the case, submitted a request for a new trial. In her filing, she expressed her criticism towards Kaplan’s orders that limited Trump’s testimony, while also pleading with him to grant Trump a fresh opportunity to present his case.
According to Habba, two errors significantly influenced the outcome of the trial. The first error was the exclusion of President Trump’s testimony regarding his state of mind, which was highly relevant to the issue of common law malice. The second error was the erroneous jury instruction on the definition of common-law malice. Habba argues that each of these errors alone would have been enough to undermine the jury’s verdict and justify a new trial.
Habba’s office was contacted by Newsweek for comment via email.
In a January 9 order from Kaplan, Habba highlighted that Trump is unable to argue that he believed his statements to be true when he made them. This includes whether he believed Ms. Carroll was lying in her accusations.
She also expressed concerns about Kaplan’s decision to permit Trump’s lawyers to only ask him two extremely restricted questions.
According to Habba, the Court emphasized the importance of knowing every detail of what the individual in question was going to say. In response, the defense counsel explained that the individual would state that their intention was not to harm Ms. Carroll. Additionally, they would assert that they felt compelled to respond and deny the accusations. Habba argued that this testimony holds significant relevance in determining the presence of common-law malice.
According to her, the court instructed Trump’s attorneys to refrain from questioning him about his state of mind or allowing him to testify about his state of mind when he made the controversial statements.
According to Habba, the jury’s verdict was likely influenced by the decisions made to restrict the scope of his testimony. As a result, Habba believes that a new trial is necessary.
In a court filing submitted to US District Judge Lewis Kaplan, Trump attorney Alina Habba argued that the jury received an inaccurate instruction from the judge regarding the definition of common law malice. According to Bloomberg reporter Erik Larson, Habba stated that these errors were significant enough on their own to impact the jury’s verdict and justify a new trial.
Trump’s legal team has requested a new trial following their appeal for Kaplan to stay the judgment. They argued that there is a high likelihood that the judgment will be reduced or eliminated on appeal. Furthermore, they emphasized that Trump’s substantial wealth should exempt him from having to post a bond in order to proceed with the appeal.
Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan (no relation to Judge Kaplan), countered Trump’s claim by asserting that he failed to present any evidence of his ability to pay the damages he was obligated to cover.
