What evidence did the juries rely on in E. Jean Carroll’s 2023 sexual‑abuse trial?
Executive summary
The May 2023 jury verdict that found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll rested on Carroll’s own testimony corroborated by contemporaneous statements to friends, testimony from other women who accused Trump of similar conduct, a photograph and recorded deposition of Trump, and the broader pattern evidence presented by Carroll’s lawyers — while defense objections and judicial rulings narrowed what could be shown at trial [1] [2] [3]. The jury reached its decision quickly — under three hours — and the judge later rejected Trump’s bid for a new trial, finding the record supported the verdict [4] [5].
1. The plaintiff’s firsthand account: Carroll’s testimony and what jurors heard
E. Jean Carroll testified that in spring 1996 Donald Trump forced himself on her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room, and that testimony was the central factual claim the jury weighed; the jury found by a preponderance of the evidence that Carroll proved sexual abuse even if it did not meet New York’s narrow statutory definition of rape [1] [6] [7]. The trial record emphasized her recounting of the encounter, and Judge Kaplan framed the choice for jurors as assessing “what Donald Trump says versus what all 11 of these witnesses said in that chair over there,” signaling Carroll’s testimony was presented as part of an array of corroborating evidence [3].
2. Immediate corroboration: two friends who heard about the attack
Two longtime friends testified that Carroll had told them about the alleged assault shortly after it happened and had asked them to keep it quiet, testimony the defense could not erase and that the prosecution used to counter the notion of a fabricated, decades‑later claim [3]. That contemporaneous reporting to friends — classic corroboration in civil sexual‑assault litigation — was repeatedly highlighted by Carroll’s team and cited by media summaries of the evidence presented at trial [1] [3].
3. Pattern and propensity evidence: other accusers and the Access Hollywood context
Carroll’s lawyers introduced testimony from two other women who said Trump had sexually assaulted them in separate incidents and pointed to the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump boasted of aggressive sexual behavior to establish a pattern of conduct, an approach designed to move the jury beyond a single conflicting testimony into a broader credibility assessment [1] [8]. The defense tried to bar some of that material as unfairly prejudicial, and the record shows contested motions over what propensity evidence jurors could hear [1].
4. Documents and recorded testimony: the 1987 photo and Trump’s deposition
The plaintiffs showed a photograph of Carroll with Trump from 1987 to establish their prior acquaintance, and jurors viewed Trump’s October 2022 deposition video in which he emphatically denied the allegations — a videotaped denial the jury could weigh directly against Carroll’s live testimony [1] [2]. Media accounts and the trial docket indicate those documentary pieces featured prominently in closing arguments and were central to jurors’ credibility determinations [8] [4].
5. What was excluded, what the defense did not present, and counterarguments
Judge Kaplan excluded mention of DNA evidence after defense counsel’s own filings argued it would not be probative and would unfairly delay the trial; the judge barred the issue, and Trump’s team ultimately did not call any witnesses or put the former president on the stand, relying instead on cross‑examination and motions arguing insufficient proof [1] [6]. Trump’s lawyers later characterized the verdict as unsupported and sought a new trial, but the judge found no “seriously erroneous result” and denied that motion, preserving the $5 million award [5] [4].
6. How the jury appears to have synthesized the evidence
The verdict form and rapid deliberations suggest jurors found Carroll’s account credible when viewed alongside corroboration from friends, similar allegations from other women, the 1987 photograph, and Trump’s recorded deposition that contradicted her version — a mosaic of testimonial and documentary evidence that the jury said met the civil standard of preponderance even as it declined to find statutory rape under New York law [6] [4] [7]. Subsequent judicial commentary reiterated that the jury’s factual finding of nonconsensual sexual contact aligned with ordinary understandings of rape, even if the legal label differed under the statute [9].