What specific findings did the jury make in E. Jean Carroll's trial against Donald Trump?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A federal jury in May 2023 found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll (not guilty of rape under New York’s statutory definition) and for defaming her, and it awarded Carroll $5 million in that civil case; a separate trial later found Trump liable for defamation for other statements and produced an $83.3 million award [1] [2] [3]. Appeals courts have repeatedly affirmed the $5 million verdict and denied rehearing requests; Trump has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the $5 million verdict [4] [3] [5].
1. Jury’s direct findings: sexual abuse but not statutory rape
The jury concluded that Trump sexually abused Carroll during an encounter in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid‑1990s but did not find him liable for rape as defined under New York law — a distinction the trial judge explained to jurors when laying out the legal elements they could find [1] [6]. The May 2023 jury returned its verdict after roughly three hours of deliberations, finding Trump liable on the sexual‑abuse claim and awarding $5 million in damages tied to that verdict [1] [4].
2. Defamation finding tied to Trump’s 2019 statements
The same jury also found Trump liable for defaming Carroll by publicly denying her allegations and calling her a liar, which was the second basis of the $5 million civil judgment; that defamation finding in the 2023 trial is linked to Trump’s 2019 comments about Carroll [1] [4]. Separately, in a later January 2024 trial a different jury found Trump liable for defaming Carroll for other statements and imposed an $83.3 million award — a larger, distinct judgement affirmed on appeal [5] [2].
3. Damages and appellate posture
The May 2023 jury’s $5 million verdict was upheld by a Second Circuit panel and later by the court’s mandate, starting the clock for further review; Trump has repeatedly appealed and sought rehearing en banc and then sought Supreme Court review [4] [3] [5]. Reporting and court documents state the appeals court found the district court’s evidentiary rulings within the range of permissible decisions and affirmed the $5 million award [4] [3].
4. Contested evidentiary rulings and Trump’s arguments on appeal
Trump’s legal team has argued on appeal that trial Judge Lewis Kaplan committed “indefensible evidentiary rulings” by admitting testimony from two other women who alleged prior misconduct by Trump and by allowing inflammatory materials such as the “Access Hollywood” tape, contending these items improperly bolstered Carroll’s credibility [5] [7]. The Second Circuit rejected those arguments, concluding any claimed errors did not affect Trump’s substantial rights and that the trial judge did not err in admitting propensity evidence [4] [7].
5. Two related but separate verdicts: $5M and $83.3M
Court and news accounts make clear there are two separate civil judgments involving Carroll and Trump: the May 2023 jury’s $5 million award for sexual abuse and defamation in the earlier case, and a later January 2024 jury’s $83.3 million award for defamatory statements made while Trump was president; both have been the subject of appeals and post‑trial motions [1] [5] [2]. Appeals courts have dealt separately with issues such as presidential‑immunity claims tied to the 2019 statements and the later 2024 defamation award [5] [8].
6. What sources emphasize and what they don’t
Contemporary reporting and the appellate opinion emphasize the jury’s specific findings (sexual abuse — not statutory rape — and defamation) and the appellate courts’ conclusions that the trial judge’s rulings were acceptable; the sources document Trump’s ongoing appeals and his petition to the Supreme Court [1] [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention internal jury deliberations beyond the short deliberation time, nor do they provide juror statements explaining their reasoning (not found in current reporting).
7. Competing narratives and implicit stakes
Carroll’s lawyers and many outlets portray the jury verdicts as vindication and point to appellate affirmances as confirmation; Trump’s team frames the rulings as tainted by unfair evidentiary choices and has argued presidential‑immunity and evidentiary error theories in court and before the public [7] [5]. The dispute over admissible evidence — particularly testimony from other accusers and the “Access Hollywood” tape — is the clearest fault line between the parties and shapes whether higher courts will intervene [7] [4].
Limitations: this account relies only on the supplied reporting and court summaries; any additional trial documents, jury forms, or contemporaneous transcripts beyond these sources are not referenced here (available sources do not mention additional trial minutiae).