Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Did E. Jean Carroll present contemporaneous clothing as evidence in her 2019 or 2022 cases?
Executive summary
E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers had a black Donna Karan “jacket dress” that she says she was wearing during the alleged 1990s assault tested forensically after she first went public in 2019; lab testing in 2020 reportedly found unidentified male skin cells on the dress and Carroll sought Trump’s DNA to compare with those samples [1] [2] [3]. Federal judges later limited how DNA evidence could be used at trial: a 2023 order barred testimony, argument or reference to DNA at the April 2023 trial, and a judge rejected a last‑minute quid‑pro‑quo DNA offer from Trump because discovery had closed [2] [4].
1. The dress: physical evidence preserved and tested
Carroll has said she kept the black jacket dress she said she wore during the incident hanging in her closet for years and then had it sent for forensic testing after going public in 2019; the lab report is described in filings as referencing skin fragments and unidentified male DNA on the shoulder and sleeves [1] [5] [6]. Reporting and court filings repeatedly cite that the tested garment — central to Carroll’s account — produced material that could be forensically analyzed [2] [7].
2. Carroll sought Trump’s DNA to compare to material on the dress
From early in the litigation Carroll’s team formally requested a buccal, blood or other DNA sample from Trump so laboratory analysts could compare any male DNA on the dress to his genetic profile; that request was made as part of discovery in 2020 and reiterated in later filings [1] [3]. Courthouse News and other outlets reported that Carroll’s lawyers pressed for the comparison because unidentified male DNA had been reported on the garment [1] [2].
3. Judges limited or excluded DNA evidence at trial
Despite the testing and the requests for a defendant sample, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in March 2023 that both sides were “precluded from any testimony, argument, commentary or reference concerning DNA evidence” during the April 2023 trial — meaning jurors would not hear about the DNA results or comparisons during that proceeding [2]. Separately, judges rejected Trump’s late offer to provide DNA in exchange for missing portions of the lab report and declined to reopen discovery, calling the timing untimely [4] [7].
4. How courts and reporting characterize the probative value
Court statements and reporting noted limits on what DNA would prove even if there were a match: a match would “only show there was some encounter between Trump and Carroll when she was wearing the dress,” a judge observed in rejecting a last‑minute reopening of discovery [7]. The lab report itself reportedly did not find sperm cells and referenced an appendix with electropherograms that plaintiffs and defendants disputed over, which fed dispute over the relevance and completeness of the report [4] [7].
5. What happened in the 2019 (Carroll I) and 2022 (Carroll II) litigation regarding clothing evidence
The materials make clear that forensic testing of the dress was conducted after Carroll’s 2019 public allegation and that those test results became a contested part of discovery going into later cases; however, at trial in April 2023 (the 2022‑era case brought under New York’s Adult Survivors Act), the judge excluded DNA evidence and references so jurors did not receive the DNA information [3] [2]. Reporting about the separate 2019 defamation suit and the later 2022 filing indicates the dress and its testing were litigated issues across the disputes, but the direct presentation of DNA to jurors was barred [8] [2].
6. Competing narratives and courtroom tactics
Carroll’s team framed preservation and testing of the dress as key corroboration and sought a DNA comparison to strengthen her account [3] [1]. Trump’s lawyers resisted providing DNA for years and then made a late offer — which the court characterized as potentially dilatory and untimely — and the defense also argued the lab materials were incomplete and their appendix missing [4] [7]. These opposing strategies shaped judicial rulings that minimized what jurors would hear about DNA despite the underlying forensic testing [2] [4].
7. Limitations in available reporting and what is not found
Available sources document the dress’s testing, the finding of unidentified male skin cells, Carroll’s requests for Trump’s DNA, and judicial exclusions of DNA at trial [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention that jurors in the April 2023 trial heard direct DNA comparisons tying Trump to the dress; in fact, they explicitly state DNA was barred from the trial record [2]. If you want court orders or the full lab reports themselves, those documents are not included in the provided reporting [4] [7].
Summary takeaway: Carroll did present a preserved garment and had it forensically tested after the 2019 accusation, and she sought Trump’s DNA to compare against male material found on that dress — but courts barred introduction of DNA evidence or reference to it at the April 2023 trial and rejected last‑minute attempts to reopen discovery to allow such testing to be introduced [3] [2] [4].