How did courts rule in E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuits against Donald Trump, and what evidence was admitted at trial?

1. How the courts ruled — two related civil judgments

In May 2023 a Manhattan federal jury determined Trump was liable for sexual abuse (though not criminal rape under the statutes’ language) and for defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million in damages ^[1]; later proceedings culminated in an $83.3 million defamation judgment that federal courts — including a Second Circuit panel — upheld against Trump’s challenges, rejecting claims of excessive damages and immunity ^{[2] [3]}.

2. Post-trial motion practice and consolidation of findings

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan presided over the litigation, denied Trump’s motions for a new trial and to reduce or vacate awards, and instructed a later jury to accept elements of the earlier jury’s findings for purposes of the second case; the district court preserved Carroll’s full damages and refused to strike key rulings that tied the two suits together ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

3. What evidence the courts admitted at trial

The district court admitted several categories of contested evidence: testimony from two other women alleging separate sexual misconduct by Trump, the 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump bragged about groping women, video excerpts from Trump’s deposition (including a mistaken photo identification), and testimony from Bergdorf Goodman employees about store conditions — all of which the courts found relevant and admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 415 (permitting other-acts evidence in sexual-assault cases) and related evidentiary principles ^{[4] [8] [2] [6]}.

4. How appellate and other courts treated those evidentiary rulings

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s evidentiary decisions, holding that the testimony of the two women and the 2005 recording were admissible under Rules 413 and 415 and that any claimed trial errors did not prejudice Trump’s substantial rights; the appeals court therefore upheld both the evidentiary rulings and the $83.3 million award against Trump ^{[4] [3]}. Trump’s attorneys have persisted in arguing to higher courts, including filings seeking Supreme Court review, that admitting such “propensity” evidence and the Access Hollywood tape was improper and inflammatory ^{[9] [8]}.

5. Competing narratives, strategic objectives and what remains contested

Carroll’s team and Judge Kaplan framed the propensity evidence and the tape as probative of pattern, intent and credibility — even calling the tape akin to a confession — while Trump’s lawyers characterized the same material as prejudicial, arguing it improperly invited jurors to infer guilt from uncharged acts and demanded reversal; courts so far have sided with the lower-court approach to Rules 413/415, but that legal contention is the centerpiece of ongoing appeals and Supreme Court petitioning ^{[10] [8] [9]}. Reporting and court orders also show limits on evidence: Kaplan excluded certain impeachment proffers (for example, funding-related evidence tied to third parties) as immaterial or prejudicial, and some expert testimony proffered by the defense was rejected for failing to meet qualification standards ^[6].

6. Bottom line and evidentiary posture going forward

The bottom line: federal juries and judges ruled that Carroll was sexually abused and defamed by Trump and awarded substantial damages, and appellate courts have largely sustained the trials’ evidentiary frameworks — including other-witness testimony and the Access Hollywood tape — under Rules 413 and 415; Trump’s team continues to litigate those rulings upward, framing them as reversible evidentiary error even as courts to date have deemed them permissible and harmless ^{[1] [4] [9]}.