What did the judge rule in the E. Jean Carroll civil trial against Donald Trump?
Executive summary
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan presided over E. Jean Carroll’s federal civil case and allowed a jury to decide liability; the jury found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and for defaming her, awarding $5 million in damages, and Judge Kaplan rejected post-trial motions that would have undone that result [1] [2]. The rulings and evidentiary decisions that Kaplan made — including allowing the “Access Hollywood” tape and testimony from other accusers — were later defended on appeal and remained intact as courts affirmed the judgment [3] [4].
1. Judge’s role: kept the jury verdict and denied a new trial
Kaplan oversaw pretrial evidentiary rulings, instructed a special-verdict form for the jury, and after the May 2023 verdict he denied Trump’s Rule 59 motion for a new trial, concluding the evidence supported the jury’s conclusions and preserving Carroll’s full damages award [2] [5]. The district-court opinion explained that the special-verdict form was agreed upon by both parties and that Trump had waived certain procedural objections by failing to demand specific jury findings before deliberations ended [2].
2. What the jury found — and how the judge framed that finding
A federal jury returned a unanimous verdict finding Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and for defamation, and it awarded $5 million in total damages; Kaplan read and entered that verdict into judgment in May 2023 [1] [5]. Kaplan later issued rulings clarifying aspects of the verdict and dismissed certain counterclaims, and in related rulings he characterized Carroll’s accusation by stating the common definition of “rape” was supported by the record for particular legal purposes — language the judge used in a partial summary-judgment context [6].
3. Evidentiary choices the judge made and the ensuing disputes
Kaplan allowed the jury to hear the “Access Hollywood” tape and testimony from two other women who accused Trump of sexual assault, rulings that Trump’s lawyers said were prejudicial and formed the core of his appeals; Kaplan and later the Second Circuit found those evidentiary decisions within the court’s discretion and, at least on appeal, harmless if erroneous [3] [4]. Trump’s team argued at the appellate level that admitting such evidence and other trial rulings tainted the outcome, but the appeals court affirmed the $5 million award [7] [4].
4. Appeals, higher‑court petitions and the judge’s rulings so far
After Kaplan entered judgment, Trump appealed and sought to overturn the verdict, arguing before appellate courts that Kaplan erred on evidence and other issues; the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and upheld the $5 million award [4]. Trump then sought Supreme Court review, a petition that drew public attention and filings from both sides arguing whether Kaplan’s rulings warranted intervention, while lower courts continued to reject a wholesale reversal [8] [3].
5. Political and strategic context the judge acknowledged indirectly
Kaplan’s rulings and the jury’s verdict had immediate political and financial stakes — courts and commentators noted the implications for Trump as a candidate and public figure, and both sides framed portions of the litigation in political terms during appeals [1] [9]. While Kaplan’s work is judicial and procedural, the litigation’s overlap with Trump’s public statements, campaign activity and subsequent litigation over separate defamation damage trials has kept the judge’s rulings under intense public scrutiny [6] [10].
6. Bottom line: what the judge ultimately left in place
Judge Kaplan oversaw the trial, validated the special-verdict process, entered the jury’s $5 million judgment for sexual abuse and defamation, denied motions that would vacate or substantially alter that result, and had his evidentiary determinations largely upheld on appeal — leaving the district-court judgment intact unless or until a higher court orders otherwise [2] [4] [1].