Are there other witnesses in the Carroll case who mentioned Trump?
Executive summary
The record shows multiple witnesses beyond E. Jean Carroll herself who mentioned Donald Trump during the trial and the appeals — including two women who accused Trump of separate past sexual assaults, friends and colleagues who said Carroll had told them about the 1996 encounter, and expert witnesses presented by Carroll’s team; the Second Circuit and trial record treated those statements as admissible propensity and corroborative evidence [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and court filings identify specific names: the “other sexual-assault” witnesses referenced by the courts, named accusers in press accounts, and at least one longtime colleague who testified as to Carroll’s character and prior outcry [1] [4] [3].
1. The “other acts” witnesses: sexual-assault allegations introduced as propensity evidence
Federal courts and news reports make clear that the trial admitted testimony from two women who alleged separate past sexual assaults by Trump under Rules 413 and 415, and those witnesses were central to the appeals over evidentiary rulings Trump challenged — the Second Circuit upheld their admission and found no reversible abuse of discretion [1]. Journalistic summaries and the appeals record repeatedly reference those additional accusers as part of the case’s factual tapestry, and outlets named other women who have publicly accused Trump such as columnist-protected sources cited by the AP when describing the full evidentiary picture [1] [4].
2. Friends, colleagues and “outcry” witnesses who said Carroll spoke about the incident
The trial also featured witnesses who testified that Carroll had told them shortly after the alleged 1996 incident, often described in filings and briefs as “outcry” witnesses; trial counsel and appellate briefs debated the weight and possible bias of those witnesses’ recollections, which Trump’s lawyers argued were prejudicial [2] [5]. Specific names appearing in reporting include Roberta Myers, who Carroll’s team called as a character witness and who testified to Carroll’s credibility and professional reputation, and Carol Martin, who corroborated Carroll’s account about what happened afterward, both referenced in contemporary trial coverage [3] [6].
3. Expert testimony and documentary materials that referenced Trump without new eyewitnesses
Beyond lay witnesses, Carroll’s team used expert testimony and widely circulated documentary evidence to tie Trump to a pattern of behavior — for example, the 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording was played for the jury and is repeatedly cited in coverage as part of the materials that mentioned Trump’s conduct toward women [1] [4]. A social-media expert testified about reputational harm and potential damages linked to Trump’s public denials, and news reports list Ashlee Humphreys among those witnesses addressing collateral impacts rather than firsthand knowledge of the 1996 dressing-room encounter [6].
4. What the appeals and petitions reveal about witness disputes and strategy
The post-trial appellate fight and Trump’s petition to the Supreme Court make the disagreement explicit: Trump’s lawyers argued the testimony from both the other-accuser witnesses and the outcry witnesses was prejudicial and improperly admitted as propensity evidence, while Carroll’s side and the Second Circuit defended those rulings as within federal rules permitting evidence of other sexual assaults in such cases [1] [7]. The petition appendix and briefs recount claimed coordination or bias concerns about those witnesses — a theme raised by defense filings and reflected in the docket materials that the parties have traded during appeals [5].
5. Bottom line: multiple witnesses mentioned Trump, but their roles differ
Yes — the trial record and press coverage show multiple witnesses beyond Carroll who mentioned Trump: two women who alleged other assaults and whose testimony was admitted under propensity rules, friends and colleagues who said Carroll had told them about the incident, plus experts and documentary evidence like the 2005 tape that referenced Trump’s conduct [1] [3] [4]. The dispute now is not that such witnesses existed but over their admissibility, prejudice and weight — an argument the Second Circuit rejected and which continues to animate appeals and a petition for Supreme Court review [1] [7].