Last night, legal analysts had braced for what the week might hold; would the second E. Jean Carroll defamation trial see the high-profile defendant, Donald J. Trump, taking the stand, or would he refuse to attend? Predictions were rife.
A surprise turn, however, saw the trial take an unexpected pause. In an unforeseen twist after a juror fell ill, Judge Kaplan adjourned the proceedings. Additionally, Trump’s counsel, Alina Habba, reported being unwell over the weekend, indicating that at least one of her parents had tested positive for COVID-19. Habba asked that the trial resume on Wednesday, coincidentally after the New Hampshire primary.
Trump, instead of being at the trial, spent the day unleashing a social media storm. Over the weekend, he released a series of posts attacking Carroll. He attempted to discredit the 80-year-old sexual assault victim by selectively quoting from her advice column, perhaps with an aim to suggest that a woman who freely discusses matters of sex could not be a rape victim.
As the trial awaits resumption, legal teams have been busy. Trump’s side asked for a mistrial, alleging that Carroll destroyed evidence by deleting emails containing death threats. Although Judge Kaplan rejected this request, Trump’s legal counsel took this matter to the Second Circuit for appeal. The official motion can be found here.
From the plaintiff side, Carroll responded by asserting that Trump’s request for discovery sanctions was untimely, it was improper for him to use the deleted emails as surprise evidence, and that the alleged deletions occurred before the lawsuit started.
Meanwhile, Carroll’s counsel, Roberta Kaplan, charged back at Habba’s claim referring to the Norske Ameriekalinje v. Sun Printing Press Assn. case from 1919, denying that Carroll was obliged to minimize the effects of the defamatory statements made by Trump.
As it happens, Habba’s claim could potentially lead to another legal discourse: can defamation damages be reduced because some could perceive the defamed person as a hero? Carroll firmly rejected this idea, asserting that regardless of any perceived benefits from coming forward with her story, it does not imply that Trump’s defamatory statements resulted in reputation enhancement. Carroll’s detailed response can be found here.
The trial’s postponement has perhaps provided Judge Kaplan with additional time to consider these complex motions. However, the repercussions of the delay and the associated narratives are not just being deliberated in courtrooms, but are also part of the wider public discourse, including primetime television skits.