What role did physical evidence play in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation and assault cases against Donald Trump?

1. No DNA, police report, video or eyewitnesses — what lawyers repeatedly pointed out

Trump’s appellate and Supreme Court filings, and news coverage of those filings, emphasize that no physical or DNA evidence corroborated Carroll’s account and that there were “no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation” tied to the alleged mid‑1990s incident; his lawyers have used those absences to argue the verdict rests on weak proof ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

2. What the plaintiff did present in place of physical evidence

Because there was no contemporaneous physical corroboration, Carroll’s team presented other kinds of evidence: testimony from two friends she said she told soon after the incident, a 1987 photograph of Carroll with Trump, testimony from other women who accused Trump of sexual assault, and recorded remarks by Trump (including the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape) the lawyers argued showed a pattern of nonconsensual advances ^{[5] [6]}.

3. The judge’s evidentiary choices mattered — prosecutors of pattern, defense protested

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan allowed testimony and exhibits showing other accusers and Trump’s own recorded comments; Trump’s lawyers called those “highly inflammatory propensity evidence” and argued their admission was an error that “propped up” the verdict. The district court’s rulings on what to admit were a central contested issue on appeal and in Trump’s petition to the Supreme Court ^{[1] [6] [8]}.

4. How appellate courts treated the lack of physical evidence and the use of pattern evidence

The Second Circuit reviewed the evidentiary rulings and concluded that the trial court’s decisions fell “within the range of permissible decisions” and that Trump had not shown that any purported errors affected his substantial rights; the appeals court upheld the $5 million award and found the admission of testimony about other alleged assaults permissible to show a pattern ^{[6] [7]}.

5. The judge limited certain physical‑evidence arguments during trial

The trial record and reporting indicate the district court ruled that the presence or absence of Trump’s DNA would not necessarily resolve whether the alleged assault occurred and at one point prohibited mention of DNA at trial — reflecting judicial caution about what “physical” findings, if any, could fairly bear on an incident decades old ^[5].

6. Why pattern and testimonial evidence mattered in a civil case standard

Civil cases use the preponderance‑of‑the‑evidence standard rather than criminal proof beyond a reasonable doubt. With no contemporaneous physical corroboration, Carroll’s strategy — and what the juries accepted — was to assemble contemporaneous reports, witness testimony, corroborating accounts from other alleged victims, and Trump’s own statements to persuade jurors the claim was more likely true than not ^{[5] [6]}.

7. Competing narratives and the limits of current reporting

Trump’s teams emphasize the absence of physical corroboration to argue reasonable doubt about the incident and cast the verdict as driven by improperly admitted “propensity” evidence ^{[1] [2]}. Carroll’s side and the courts counter that the allowed testimony and recordings reasonably supported a finding of sexual abuse and defamation under civil law ^{[6] [7]}. Available sources do not mention any newly discovered physical or DNA evidence that would change that balance ^{[1] [2]}.

8. What this means procedurally going forward

The lack of physical evidence is central to Trump’s petition to the Supreme Court seeking reversal or review of the $5 million civil verdict; the high court could consider whether the trial court’s evidentiary choices were legally permissible, but the Second Circuit already rejected those challenges and upheld the verdict ^{[1] [6] [8]}.