What were the key testimonies and witnesses 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This fact-check may be outdated.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
The civil trials involving E. Jean Carroll resulted in two key jury findings: a 2023 jury found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and awarded $5 million, and a later jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million for related defamation; Trump has repeatedly appealed and asked the Supreme Court to overturn the $5 million verdict [1] [2] [3]. Central testimony at the 2023 abuse trial included Carroll’s own detailed account, two other women who described separate alleged incidents by Trump, and the “Access Hollywood” recording — all of which the appeals court upheld as admissible under federal evidence rules [4] [2] [3].
1. Carroll’s firsthand account: the plaintiff who told the story to jurors
E. Jean Carroll testified that in the mid‑1990s, in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room, an encounter with Donald Trump escalated into a violent sexual assault; her live trial testimony formed the core factual narrative jurors weighed when finding him liable for sexual abuse [3] [1].
2. Two corroborating witnesses: friends Carroll said she told in the 1990s
The trial included testimony from two women who said Carroll told them at the time about an assault; reporters and feature accounts identify television anchor Carol Martin and author Lisa Birnbach as among Carroll’s key corroborating witnesses who testified about contemporaneous disclosures [5] [4]. The appeals court later held that such testimony was admissible under Rules 413 and 415 permitting “other acts” sexual‑assault evidence [4].
3. The Access Hollywood tape and pattern evidence: context the judge allowed
Carroll’s team played the 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump bragged about grabbing and kissing women; the district court admitted the tape and the testimony of other women as propensity or pattern evidence, and the 2nd Circuit rejected Trump’s challenge to those rulings [2] [4].
4. Trump’s courtroom choices and defense strategy
Donald Trump did not testify at the 2023 abuse trial; his lawyer later said the defense would offer no witnesses in that phase of the case, a tactical choice that left jurors to contrast Carroll’s testimony and admitted evidence with the absence of live defense witnesses [6]. Trump later testified briefly in the separate defamation damages trial, which produced the larger $83.3 million award [2] [3].
5. Expert and ancillary witnesses: limits and disputes over evidence
Trump’s lawyers sought to exclude or limit testimony and exhibits they called “highly inflammatory,” and they attempted to disqualify proposed experts at later proceedings; appeals and filings argue the district judge made “indefensible evidentiary rulings,” while courts so far have disagreed, finding any trial errors harmless or within discretion [3] [7] [8].
6. Appellate review: what courts said about witnesses and rulings
A three‑judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the $5 million verdict and specifically upheld the admissibility of the two women’s testimony and the 2005 recording under Rules 413/415, concluding the trial judge did not err in his evidentiary choices [4] [1]. Trump has sought rehearing en banc and petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the verdict, focusing heavily on those evidentiary rulings [9] [3] [10].
7. Competing narratives and public messaging around witnesses
Trump’s legal filings and allies frame the admitted testimony as improper “propensity” evidence and characterize Carroll’s story as politically motivated and untimely; media coverage shows courts and neutral summaries repeatedly noting the jury credited Carroll’s testimony and the corroborating evidence, while Trump emphasizes judicial error and exclusion of defense avenues [8] [11] [2]. Alternative viewpoints include commentary asserting there were “no witnesses” (a claim found in partisan outlets), but court records and mainstream reporting document multiple live witnesses and admitted recordings at trial [12] [5] [4].
8. Limitations and what available sources do not say
Available sources in this set summarize who testified and which exhibits were admitted and appealed, but they do not provide a full, line‑by‑line trial transcript here; for precise questions about wording, witness cross‑examination details, or exhibits beyond the Access Hollywood tape and the two corroborating women, available sources do not mention those specifics [2] [4].
Bottom line: Carroll’s own testimony, testimony from two women she said she told at the time, and the Access Hollywood tape were the most consequential evidentiary pieces the juries heard — and federal courts have so far sustained the judge’s decisions to admit that testimony and the recording [4] [1] [2].