Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What were the key testimonies and witnesses in E. Jean Carroll’s trial against Donald Trump?
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].