What are the details of E Jean Carroll's alleged encounter with Donald Trump in the 1990s?
Executive summary
E. Jean Carroll alleges that in the mid-1990s she encountered Donald J. Trump in the lingerie department of Bergdorf Goodman on Fifth Avenue and that the encounter turned violent inside a dressing room where she says Trump sexually assaulted her; she first went public with the allegation in a 2019 magazine essay and later sued, and a 2023 federal jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding her $5 million [1] [2] [3]. Trump has denied the encounter ever occurred, called Carroll a liar and “not my type,” and has appealed the civil verdicts, arguing lack of contemporaneous reporting and physical evidence [4] [5].
1. The setting and Carroll’s account of the encounter
Carroll says the episode occurred in a mid-1990s encounter at Bergdorf Goodman’s Fifth Avenue store, beginning with light flirting as the two shopped and ending when Trump allegedly asked her to try on a lacy bodysuit and then forced her into a fitting room where the assault occurred, an account she first published in a 2019 memoir and repeated at trial [1] [3] [6].
2. What Carroll alleged happened inside the dressing room
In her 2019 essay and courtroom testimony Carroll described a violent struggle inside a dressing room that she characterized as a sexual assault and in some public statements called rape; the federal jury in 2023 considered whether the conduct met New York’s legal definitions and ultimately found Trump liable for sexual abuse rather than rape [2] [7].
3. Evidence presented at trial and corroborating testimony
Carroll’s case relied on her own testimony, testimony from two friends she said she told shortly after the alleged incident, a photograph showing Carroll with Trump from 1987, testimony from two other women who had separately accused Trump of sexual assault, video such as the Access Hollywood tape and Trump’s 2022 deposition, and other documentary and testimonial evidence presented to the jury [8] [7] [2].
4. Missing contemporaneous evidence and disputed forensic claims
There was no police report or contemporaneous criminal investigation, and no eyewitness or video capturing the dressing‑room episode; Carroll has at times said a dress she wore contained Trump’s DNA but the judge ruled DNA evidence and related argument would be unduly prejudicial and effectively barred discussion of it at trial, a ruling later criticized by some of Trump’s allies as skewing the record [9] [2] [10].
5. Trump’s denials, defense theory and legal posture
Trump denied both that the encounter occurred and that he even knew Carroll at Bergdorf, repeatedly called her allegations false and politically motivated, and made public statements including “not my type,” which Carroll says were defamatory; his lawyers argued the decades‑old claim lacked corroboration, that Carroll’s memory of dates was unreliable, and that admitting testimony about other accusers or certain evidence was prejudicial — arguments he raised in appeals [4] [5] [1].
6. Civil verdicts, damages and ongoing appeals
A Manhattan federal jury in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the 1990s and for defaming her with later public statements, awarding $5 million in the sexual‑abuse/defamation judgment in that trial (separate defamation awards later totaled much larger sums), and appellate courts have largely upheld the jury findings while Trump has continued to appeal, including petitions to the Supreme Court [2] [11] [12].
7. What the record does and does not establish
The published court record and reporting establish Carroll’s detailed allegation of a dressing‑room assault in the mid‑1990s, the evidence and witnesses the jury heard, Trump’s denials, and the civil verdicts and appeals; the record does not include a contemporaneous police investigation or eyewitness video of the incident, and criminal charges were not filed based on the available public sources [2] [9] [10].