What are the details of the E. Jean Carroll civil case against Donald Trump?

1. How a private accusation turned into multi-million‑dollar civil judgments

Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the mid‑1990s and sued for defamation after public denials and statements by Trump in 2019; the litigation split into two related civil actions that produced jury verdicts awarding Carroll $5 million in one trial and $83.3 million in another, bringing the combined total to approximately $88.3 million ^{[3] [1]}. The courts treated the claims as both an assault/damage claim and discrete defamation actions arising from Trump's responses; juries found in Carroll's favor on liability in principal respects, and the rulings have prompted appeals, highlighting how allegations from decades earlier can lead to large civil remedies when trial evidence persuades jurors ^{[5] [3]}.

2. What juries found: assault, defamation, but not a criminal rape finding

Juries concluded that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll, with one decision describing forcible penetration with his fingers and awarding compensatory damages; that same verdict did not equate the conduct with the narrow New York statutory definition of “rape,” underscoring a legal distinction between civil findings of forcible sexual contact and criminal rape elements ^[5]. In separate defamation determinations, jurors found Trump liable for statements that damaged Carroll’s reputation and ordered sizeable damages; the courts sustained much of the factual record underpinning those findings when denying motions to overturn key awards, reflecting a judicial determination that enough admissible evidence supported the juries’ conclusions ^{[6] [3]}.

3. Trump’s appellate strategy: attacking evidence and seeking Supreme Court review

Trump’s legal team has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the verdicts, arguing that trial courts committed reversible errors by admitting certain evidence — notably the “Access Hollywood” tape and testimony from other women alleging misconduct — and by allowing what they call “highly inflammatory propensity evidence” that prejudiced jurors ^{[2] [7]}. The petition frames the verdicts as tainted by evidentiary rulings and contends that Carroll’s claims were improperly bolstered; Carroll’s counsel, by contrast, has expressed confidence that higher courts will not disturb the jury outcomes, emphasizing the jury determinations and procedural rulings that courts already affirmed ^{[8] [4]}.

4. Appellate courts’ responses and what has been upheld so far

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has upheld the core verdict in at least one appeal, finding that the district court’s evidentiary rulings fell within the permissible range and affirming the judgment that included the $5 million award, which signals judicial reluctance to overturn trial‑level credibility and evidence determinations absent clear error ^[6]. That appellate ruling affirmed that the trial record supported the jurors’ conclusions on both abuse and defamation issues, while other post‑trial proceedings and appeals continue to consider procedural and constitutional questions raised by Trump’s lawyers, including whether certain types of evidence should have been excluded ^{[6] [4]}.

5. Two trials, different awards, one consolidated public narrative

Carroll pursued multiple civil claims that proceeded in separate trials: one resulted in a $5 million award tied to assault and related defamation findings, while another produced an $83.3 million judgment stemming from defamation claims, together constituting the roughly $88.3 million total now under appellate scrutiny ^{[3] [1]}. The split outcomes and staggered verdicts reflect strategic litigation choices, differing legal theories and damages calculations, and the reality that civil remedies can be layered when separate defamatory statements and compensable harms arise at different times; defendants frequently challenge both jury findings and the damages scales on appeal ^{[3] [1]}.

6. The broader legal and public stakes beyond money

Beyond monetary awards, the cases touch on evidentiary standards, survivor testimony, and how courts handle propensity or corroborative evidence in high‑profile sexual‑misconduct claims; critics of the verdicts allege political motivation and prejudicial evidence, while supporters underline juries’ role in weighing credibility and harm ^{[7] [4]}. The ongoing appeals, including the request for Supreme Court review, will test appellate tolerance for trial judges’ discretion on evidence and the extent to which civil verdicts based on decades‑old allegations should be disturbed; those outcomes will influence future litigants, prosecutors’ charging considerations, and public conversations about civil accountability for alleged historical sexual misconduct ^{[8] [2]}.