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.
What evidence did E. Jean Carroll present during her trial against Donald Trump?
Executive summary
E. Jean Carroll’s case against Donald Trump hinged on her in-court testimony about a 1990s encounter in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room and supporting evidence presented at trial, including testimony from two other women and the “Access Hollywood” tape; a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded $5 million (abuse) and later separate defamation awards upheld on appeal [1] [2] [3]. Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the $5 million verdict arguing that the district court improperly admitted “propensity” evidence — including other women’s testimony and the Access Hollywood tape — and that there were no eyewitnesses, videos, or a police report of the alleged 1990s assault [4] [2] [3].
1. The core of Carroll’s evidence: her own detailed testimony
Carroll testified at the 2023 trial that a spring 1996 encounter at Bergdorf Goodman began as friendly flirting and ended when Trump allegedly slammed her against a dressing-room wall, pulled down her tights and forced himself on her; the jury found she proved sexual abuse under New York law though not rape as defined under statute [5] [1] [6].
2. Corroborating and contextual material the jury heard
Beyond Carroll’s account, jurors heard other items the defense later challenged as “propensity” evidence: testimony from two women who alleged separate incidents of sexual misconduct by Trump, and the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump is heard boasting about groping women — material Carroll’s team used to show a pattern the jury could consider [2] [7] [4].
3. What the defense and Trump’s appeal emphasize as missing
Trump’s lawyers repeatedly pointed out that there were “no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation” of the 1990s incident, and argue those gaps, combined with what they call “implausible” assertions, undermine the verdict; they contend the trial judge improperly allowed inflammatory evidence that propped up Carroll’s claims [3] [8] [5].
4. Judge Kaplan’s evidentiary rulings and the appellate response
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan presided over the trials and made multiple evidentiary rulings — including allowing other-witness testimony and the tape — that Trump’s team says were errors. A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit reviewed those rulings and upheld the verdicts and damages, finding the district court did not err and that the awards were reasonable in light of the facts presented [4] [1] [9].
5. How the jury’s legal findings were framed
Jurors were instructed on New York law distinctions among rape, sexual abuse and forcible touching; they concluded Carroll proved sexual abuse by a preponderance of the evidence but not statutory rape. That legal framing matters because the appeals and public discussion often conflate criminal standards and civil standards of proof (preponderance in civil cases vs. beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal law) [6] [1].
6. Damages, subsequent trial and the defamation thread
After the initial liability finding and $5 million award for sexual abuse, a separate trial addressed damages tied to Trump’s public denials and statements (the defamation claims), producing an $83.3 million judgment that was also reviewed and upheld on appeal; that later trial relied in part on the first jury’s findings and on evidence of Trump’s post-2019 statements [10] [9] [6].
7. Points of dispute and what sources emphasize differently
News outlets and court filings frame the same record differently: coverage and the Trump petition stress the absence of contemporaneous police reports and direct physical evidence [3] [8] [11], while court rulings and reporting on the appeals emphasize the totality of testimony — Carroll’s detailed account, other witnesses, and Trump’s own public statements — as sufficient for the civil jury’s finding [1] [4] [2]. The strategic dispute is over whether propensity-type evidence was legitimate context for a civil jury to weigh.
8. What’s not in the provided sources / limitations
Available sources do not mention any newly discovered forensic evidence that proved or disproved the alleged 1996 assault; the public record presented here focuses on testimony, the Access Hollywood tape, other-witness accounts, judicial evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and appellate rulings (not found in current reporting).
9. Bottom line for readers
The trial’s outcome rested primarily on Carroll’s testimony corroborated by related testimony and contextual material the judge admitted; appellate courts have so far found those rulings acceptable, but Trump’s Supreme Court petition asserts that admitting that evidence produced an unreliable verdict — framing the dispute now as both evidentiary and constitutional (presidential-immunity and evidentiary-law) in nature [4] [12].