What legal precedents regarding assault/defamation and statute limitations were cited in Carroll’s cases?

1. Evidence fights: propensity rules and the “Access Hollywood” tape

A central legal precedent in the trial and appeals concerned how courts apply Federal Rules that govern admissibility of other‑act evidence. The Second Circuit and district court decisions discussed Rules 413–415 (sexual‑assault propensity) and Rule 404(b) (other acts) when permitting jurors to hear testimony and tapes the defense called “highly inflammatory propensity evidence,” including the “Access Hollywood” tape; courts concluded the rulings were within the permissible range and any errors were harmless ^{[1] [5] [7] [8]}. Trump’s petition to the Supreme Court argues these evidentiary decisions were “indefensible,” but appellate panels have already relied on the cited rules in affirming the verdicts ^{[8] [7]}.

2. Statutes of limitations and the Adult Survivors Act window

Carroll’s assault claim was filed after many years; reporting and court summaries tie her 2022 civil suit to New York’s Adult Survivors Act, a temporary statutory window that revived old claims of sexual abuse otherwise barred by ordinary statutes of limitations ^[2]. For defamation, the usual limitations periods matter: commentators and Carroll’s counsel noted that defamation statutes commonly run one to three years depending on state—New York and California often one year, some states up to three—so new defamatory statements can trigger fresh claims if timely filed ^{[9] [3] [10]}.

3. Presidential immunity: waiver and scope questions

On appeal the parties litigated whether statements made while Trump was president were protected by presidential immunity. The Second Circuit held that the president had waived a claim to absolute presidential immunity by not timely asserting it and that later Supreme Court precedent did not automatically void the judgments; other panels addressed whether certain statements were within the “scope of employment” for substitution by the United States ^{[4] [5]}. The Justice Department and third‑party briefs also pressed competing views about whether statements were official acts or purely personal ^{[11] [12]}.

4. Precedent about introducing prior conduct and its broader implications

The appellate commentary warned that the panel opinion could allow future plaintiffs or prosecutors to introduce evidence of prior conduct where a defendant’s “mundane outing” later became a sexual advance—i.e., a lowered barrier for admitting prior‑bad‑act evidence when courts find the conduct “unusual and distinctive” rather than mere propensity (citing Benedetto and the panel’s reading) ^{[1] [13]}. That language signals the Second Circuit’s view that, in certain factual circumstances, courts may treat such evidence as probative of actus reus, which critics say could broaden admissibility in other controversial cases ^[1].

5. Damages, multiple suits and republication timing for defamation

Carroll obtained multiple verdicts: a $5 million award tied to the sexual‑abuse/defamation trial and an $83.3 million judgment from a separate defamation proceeding that also reached appellate review; courts have upheld both awards on appeal, including rejecting immunity and sufficiency challenges ^{[14] [15] [16]}. Appellate opinions considered whether republication or later comments reset defamation limitations windows; legal summaries note that most jurisdictions treat time limits as running from publication and that republication rules (and discovery doctrines) can be dispositive ^{[3] [17]}.

6. Competing perspectives and what’s unresolved

Defense filings frame the litigation as legally flawed because of evidentiary rulings and alleged tardiness (claiming Carroll “waited more than 20 years”), seeking Supreme Court review on propensity evidence and immunity grounds ^{[18] [19]}. Carroll’s team and supporting briefs (including state AGs) counter that courts correctly applied rules allowing relevant evidence and that the Adult Survivors Act and ordinary defamation law permitted timely relief; the Second Circuit repeatedly affirmed those holdings ^{[11] [5] [6]}. Available sources do not mention any Supreme Court decision resolving these specific evidentiary or immunity questions as of the latest appellate filings ^[13].

Limitations and sourcing note: this analysis draws only on the documents and reporting supplied above; I cite specific appellate and press items for each legal principle summarized ^{[1] [5] [4] [2] [3]}.