Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How have judges ruled on admissibility of evidence and testimonies in the underage sexual misconduct suits against Trump?
Executive summary
Judges in the high‑profile civil suits over alleged sexual misconduct by Donald Trump have repeatedly made contested decisions about admitting testimony and other‑acts evidence; most notably, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan allowed testimony from other women and items like the Access Hollywood tape as propensity or pattern evidence in E. Jean Carroll’s case, a ruling later upheld by a Second Circuit panel (noted in reporting and appeals filings) though Trump’s team calls those rulings “indefensible” and is seeking Supreme Court review [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not detail every evidentiary ruling in every underage‑accuser suit; they focus chiefly on Carroll’s case and the disputes over “propensity” evidence [1] [2].
1. Judges permitted “other‑acts” testimony in Carroll’s trial — and the appeals court upheld it
Judge Lewis Kaplan allowed evidence the defense called “propensity” material — including testimony from two other women claiming sexual misconduct by Trump and the Access Hollywood tape — reasoning that those items bore on pattern, intent or credibility in the E. Jean Carroll civil trial; that admission was later reviewed by a Second Circuit panel, which concluded the trial judge did not violate Trump’s rights by admitting it [1] [2].
2. The admission of such evidence is the central battleground in appeals and the Supreme Court petition
Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court asserts that Judge Kaplan made a “series of indefensible evidentiary rulings” and “improperly admitted highly inflammatory propensity evidence against President Trump,” specifically pointing to testimony by other women as central to that claim [3] [2]. The filings argue that admitting those items prejudiced the jury; the government of record and appellate panel decisions disagree with that characterization, per reporting [2].
3. Reporting emphasizes both legal standards and the political stakes
News outlets and legal trackers frame the dispute around federal evidence rules and the narrow standards for admitting other‑acts material: proponents of admissibility argue such evidence helps show pattern or motive, while opponents say it risks unfair prejudice by suggesting bad character rather than facts about the particular incident; Trump’s petition to the Court frames the judge’s rulings as departures from those rules [1] [2] [3].
4. What judges excluded — and what’s described as inadmissible in filings
There are reported examples of exclusions: Judge Kaplan barred certain items (for example, evidence about the trial’s donor funding and some DNA references were described as inadmissible by the court), a ruling relied on in public statements about what was and wasn’t presented to jurors [1]. Trump’s lawyers also point to lack of physical or DNA corroboration in their Supreme Court papers as a basis to challenge the verdict, emphasizing what they say were evidentiary deficits [4].
5. How courts balanced prejudice vs. probative value in practice
The available reporting shows judges applied the usual balancing test — weighing probative value against unfair prejudice — and concluded that at least in Carroll’s trial the probative value of other‑acts testimony and certain tapes justified admission; appellate review found those discretionary rulings did not constitute reversible error in that instance [1] [2].
6. Limits of current public reporting — where sources are silent
Available sources concentrate on the E. Jean Carroll litigation and appellate fight over propensity evidence; they do not comprehensively catalog rulings in other underage‑accuser suits or provide full transcripts of evidentiary hearings in each case, so claims about how every judge ruled across all underage allegations are not supported by these documents (not found in current reporting) [1] [2].
7. Competing narratives: trial court discretion vs. claims of prejudice
The judiciary’s posture — described in appellate rulings and reporting — is that trial judges have substantial discretion on admissibility and Kaplan’s choices fell within that discretion [2]. By contrast, Trump’s filings argue those same choices improperly allowed “highly inflammatory” material that tipped the scales; that dispute is now the core issue in the petition for Supreme Court review [3] [2].
8. What to watch next
The next step reported is whether four Supreme Court justices will agree to take Trump’s petition to overturn the verdict; the high court’s decision on whether to grant review will determine if the evidentiary questions raised (especially about admitting other‑acts testimony) receive nationwide legal clarification or remain governed by the traditional deference to trial judges reflected in the Second Circuit’s ruling [2] [3].
Limitations: this analysis uses reporting that highlights the Carroll litigation and appellate filings; it does not purport to cover every evidentiary ruling in every related suit because the provided sources do not do so (not found in current reporting) [1] [2].