The legal team representing Donald Trump have come under more scrutiny following recent developments in the defamation case brought against the former president by E. Jean Carroll. This case presents yet another questionable decision made by Trump’s lawyers as they attempt to ‘substitute a new rebuttal expert’ just two months prior to the trial.
Judge Lewis Kaplan thwarted this request, marking the second time he dismissed Trump’s recommended expert witness, Robert Fisher. This repeated rejection occurred once in March with respect to the Carroll II case and again on October 5th in the context of Carroll I. Despite this indication that a new expert may be advisable, lawyers Alina Habba and Michael Madaio chose to pursue their initial course.
The Carroll I case brewed following a 2019 incident in which now-former President Trump accused E. Jean Carroll of propagating a lie as part of a plot to defame him by the Democrats. The advice columnist alleged that Trump had sexually assaulted her during the 90s, sparking a defamation suit that Trump later alleviated to federal court using the Westfall Act. This case has been flitting between the Second Circuit and the DC Court of Appeals for nearly two years as judges deliberated if Trump’s accusations of Carroll being ‘too old and ugly to sexually assault’ were made within his professional capacity. The trial is currently slated for January 15, 2024.
In an unexpected twist, Trump repeated his statement after his presidential term, providing Carroll with more proof that his comments weren’t made within his role as president. Following his highly negative remarks about Carroll in October 2022, Carroll initiated Carroll II, which alleges defamation and sexual abuse, the following Thanksgiving under the New York Adult Survivors Act. The court ruled in favor of Carroll, leading to a $5 million jury verdict.
The choice of Fisher as a rebuttal witness to counter Carroll’s expert, Dr. Ashlee Humphreys, caused further legal troubles and turned heads within the legal world. Humphreys provided extensive reports in both cases, meticulously calculating damages. By contrast, Fisher merely offered his opinion that Carroll had benefitted from the public dispute, delivering substantially shorter responses.
Moreover, in a deposition, Fisher admitted he had not thoroughly read Dr. Humphreys’ reports and instead loosely based his opinion on a handful of Google searches and a few articles about the case. If that wasn’t enough cause for concern, Fisher also confessed that he began his journalistic career in the late 60s by plagiarizing posts from the LA Times.
Despite Fisher’s disappointing performance, Trump’s lawyers continued to drag their feet in considering an alternative witness. It wasn’t until Judge Kaplan barred Fisher from testifying in Carroll II and later Carroll I that this became a priority. On November 2, just ten weeks before the trial, Madaio filed an unusual letter motion asking the judge to either reconsider his stance on Fisher or allow a to-be-named-later rebuttal witness.
However, Carroll’s lawyer, Shawn Crowley, contests this late stage reparatory attempt, arguing that Trump is essentially requesting to reopen discovery and introduce a new expert scarcely two months before the trial and nearly a year after expert discovery closed.
Cases referenced can be found at Carroll v. Trump I and Carroll v. Trump II.
Further updates on this ongoing matter can be expected in the near future. You can stay informed by following the unfolding legal saga via Above the Law.