After three years of what can readily be described as tumultuous legal engagements spearheaded by his previous counsel Alina Habba, former President Donald Trump seems to have shifted towards making a more reasoned approach in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case. However, this change in tack has come a month after the jury pronounced its verdict which amounted to $83 million.
The new litigation strategy was unveiled by former Missouri Solicitor General John Sauer who submitted a motion for a new trial and a motion for judgment as a matter of law. The crux of Sauer’s argument dwells on the assertion that Judge Lewis Kaplan failed to accurately interpret the common law malice standard under New York law during his instruction to the jury. According to Sauer, this error led to an inadequate assessment of Trump’s motivation to defame Carroll.
Expanding on the specifics, the legal requirement for common law malice demands that the defaming statement was wholly driven by the desire to cause harm to the plaintiff. As stated in the case of Stukuls v. State, to establish common law malice, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof that the statement in question was solely triggered by malice. Sauer’s contention is that the court mistakenly barred Trump from giving a testament that his motive behind his alleged defamation of Carroll was to uphold his own reputation, his family’s dignity, and the high office of the presidency rather than a mere intention to belittle Carroll.
The first jury found that Trump’s statements were indeed defamatory and were instigated by both actual malice and common law malice. In a later case, Judge Kaplan issued a summary judgment stating that the defamatory pronouncements by Trump in the second case were substantially similar to the earlier case, thereby preventing Trump from refuting their defamatory nature in the latter trial.
As it stands, it remains uncertain whether this new legal maneuver will bear fruit. Nonetheless, this departure from previously haphazard ways could be considered a significant step in a more serious direction. Though it is likely that this new argument, no matter how logical or irrational it might seem, will meet a considerable amount of legal resistance in the foreseeable proceedings.
Further details can be viewed at Carroll v. Trump I and Carroll v. Trump II.