Did the judge say the e jean carroll didnt have enough evidence to charge trump criminally?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The trial judge in the E. Jean Carroll civil case, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, did not say Carroll lacked enough evidence to charge Donald Trump criminally; the proceedings were civil, not criminal, and juries found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million and later $83.3 million in related defamation damages [1] [2]. Trump’s lawyers now argue to the U.S. Supreme Court that Judge Kaplan improperly admitted evidence — and that there were “no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation” — but the Second Circuit and trial juries rejected those arguments so far [3] [4].
1. The courtroom the judge ran was civil, not criminal — verdicts, not criminal charges
The suits brought by E. Jean Carroll were civil: jurors in Manhattan found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the 1990s and awarded $5 million in the first trial; a separate jury later awarded $83.3 million for defamation based on his subsequent statements [1] [2]. Civil judges and juries resolve liability and damages; they do not “charge” defendants with crimes, and the trial record and appeals concern admissibility of evidence and legal errors in a civil context [5] [3].
2. What Judge Kaplan actually did — allowed evidence and explained verdict forms
Reporting shows Judge Kaplan oversaw decisions to admit evidence that included testimony from other women and the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape; he instructed jurors on New York law definitions (rape, sexual abuse, forcible touching) and guided them on a verdict form the jury used to assess liability [5] [6]. Trump’s team argues those rulings were improper; appeals courts so far have upheld Kaplan’s decisions [5] [3].
3. The defense’s central contention to the Supreme Court — evidentiary error and lack of objective proof
In the petition to the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers described Carroll’s claims as “implausible” and pointed to what they call an absence of eyewitnesses, video, or a police report, and they contend that Kaplan allowed “highly inflammatory propensity evidence” that propped up the verdict [7] [4]. This is the argument now before the high court — that evidentiary rulings, not a judge’s finding of insufficient evidence, are the proper ground for reversal [3].
4. How appeals courts ruled — they affirmed the civil judgments
A Second Circuit panel affirmed the $5 million award, finding the district court’s evidentiary rulings were within the range of permissible decisions and that any errors were harmless [5]. The appeals court also affirmed an $83.3 million defamation judgment and declined a rehearing en banc; those rulings are a key reason Trump moved to seek Supreme Court review [2] [6].
5. Why people conflate judge commentary with criminal charging decisions
Public confusion stems from overlapping vocabulary — words like “rape,” “assault” and judges explaining legal definitions — and from the high-profile nature of the defendant and the subject matter. But the available reporting makes clear the judge’s role was to manage a civil trial and evidence, not to decide whether to bring criminal charges; criminal charging is a prosecutorial decision not at issue in Carroll’s civil suits [6] [1]. Available sources do not mention any statement by Judge Kaplan saying Carroll lacked sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges.
6. Competing viewpoints in the record — juries, judges, and the defense narrative
Carroll’s legal team and juries concluded the evidence supported civil liability; appellate panels have backed those conclusions [1] [5]. Trump’s lawyers emphasize perceived gaps in objective evidence and fault the trial judge’s evidentiary rulings — framing the verdict as the product of improper procedure and “propensity” evidence [4] [3]. Both positions are present in the record; the next legal posture is whether the Supreme Court will accept and remedy the defense’s evidentiary and legal claims [7] [8].
7. Bottom line for readers seeking clarity
No cited reporting shows Judge Kaplan saying Carroll lacked enough evidence to criminally charge Trump; the record shows civil juries found liability and judges and appeals courts have sustained the admissibility of evidence that produced those verdicts [1] [5]. The defense’s current avenue is a Supreme Court petition arguing the civil trial erred on evidentiary grounds and on how jurors were presented the case [7] [3].