What did E. Jean Carroll allege Donald Trump did and when did the incidents occur?
Executive summary
E. Jean Carroll has alleged that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan in the mid‑1990s (she has described the event as occurring in late 1995 or early 1996), and that he later defamed her when he publicly denied the allegation; a federal jury in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexual abuse (not rape) and defamation and awarded Carroll $5 million, a decision subsequently upheld on appeal [1] [2] [3]. Trump has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence and testimony [4] [1] [5].
1. What Carroll specifically alleged — the act and place
Carroll’s complaint centers on an encounter she says occurred in a Bergdorf Goodman department‑store dressing room in Manhattan, where she alleges Trump sexually assaulted her; the allegation was first made public in 2019 but describes events from the mid‑1990s [2] [3]. Multiple outlets summarize the core claim the same way: an alleged sexual assault in a New York department‑store fitting room in the 1990s [6] [7] [5].
2. When the incidents were said to have happened
Carroll has placed the incident in the mid‑1990s, with some reporting specifying late 1995 or early 1996 as the timeframe she provided to courts and journalists [2] [3]. News organizations uniformly describe the allegation as arising from that mid‑1990s period rather than from the 2000s or another decade [6] [1].
3. Legal findings and what jurors decided
In May 2023, a federal jury found Trump liable under a preponderance‑of‑the‑evidence standard for sexual abuse (a lesser included offense under New York law) and for defamation based on his public denials and statements after Carroll went public; that verdict produced a $5 million judgment that was later affirmed on appeal [1] [3]. Reporting and court summaries note the jury did not find Trump liable for rape under New York’s narrow statutory definition, but did find him liable for sexual abuse [2].
4. Additional defamation rulings tied to the same allegations
Separately, Carroll won a larger $83.3 million judgment in an earlier case tied to related statements Trump made while president; courts and reporting treat the cases as related but distinct—Carroll sued multiple times for defamation and later for the assault itself under New York’s Adult Survivors Act [6] [5] [8]. Legal commentary notes that overturning the $5 million verdict could jeopardize the larger award because the cases overlap in legal issues and findings [9].
5. Evidence contested at trial and grounds for Trump’s appeal
Trump’s lawyers argue the trial judge erred by allowing “propensity” evidence — notably testimony from two other women who alleged separate instances of sexual misconduct by Trump — and by admitting the “Access Hollywood” tape and other material they call inflammatory; those evidentiary rulings form the core of his petition to the Supreme Court [4] [10] [5]. The Second Circuit rejected those arguments in December 2024, concluding any errors did not affect Trump’s substantial rights, and Trump sought en banc review before asking the Supreme Court to intervene [2] [3].
6. Competing perspectives and political framing
Trump and his legal team characterize Carroll’s allegations as politically motivated and a “hoax,” arguing delay and lack of contemporaneous evidence (no police report or eyewitnesses) undermine her claims; some outlets cite those defense arguments as part of the record [11] [7] [10]. Carroll’s supporters and courts have emphasized the jury’s factual findings and the legal routes (including the Adult Survivors Act) that allowed the claim to be tried despite the decades between the alleged act and the lawsuit [8] [12].
7. Limits of available reporting and what’s not said
Available reporting documents the allegation’s location, approximate timing (mid‑1990s), and the civil jury findings and appeals [1] [2] [3]. Sources do not provide, in these excerpts, verbatim testimony from Carroll describing the incident’s exact date, nor do they contain internal evidence not entered into the public record; where a specific date is omitted, reporting notes Carroll could not name an exact day or sometimes even a year in public statements summarized by some outlets [11] [7].
8. Why this matters now
The case has resurfaced because Trump has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the $5 million verdict, raising constitutional and evidentiary questions about admissibility of other‑acts testimony, presidential statements, and whether prior rulings permit jury findings to stand; the outcome could affect related judgments and set legal precedents about evidence in civil sexual‑assault suits [4] [9] [5].
If you’d like, I can pull the trial docket excerpts, summarize the Second Circuit’s reasoning point by point, or list the specific statements Trump made that were the basis for the defamation findings — say which you prefer and I’ll compile that from the available reporting [3] [2].