Legal matters revolving around E. Jean Carroll, author and plaintiff in a defamation trial against former President Donald Trump, continue to intensify. Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan of Kaplan Hecker & Fink, recently called a Manhattan federal judge to grant summary judgment on the merits in anticipation of the trial, relying on the argument that “no reasonable juror” would find in Trump’s favor. More details can be found in this article.
According to Kaplan, the request for summary judgment is warranted due to the results of the prior trial involving the same parties. In that trial, the jury determined that Trump was liable for sexually abusing Carroll and subsequently defaming her when he publicly denied the claims. Kaplan contends that this finding by the first jury necessitates the application of the doctrine of issue preclusion in the pending trial.
The doctrine of issue preclusion, also commonly known as collateral estoppel, is a legal principle that, in general terms, prevents a party from revisiting in a new trial issues that were conclusively resolved in the prior trial. If accepted by the judge, Kaplan’s argument would limit the scope of the second trial, focusing solely on determining the damages to be awarded to Carroll.
The request for summary judgment is still to be considered by the court, and such decisions typically carry a heavy burden of proof. Nevertheless, the implications of the appeal are of vital interest for legal professionals involved in defamation cases, especially regarding how it might impact the conduct of sequential trials within the same litigation.