How did the E. Jean Carroll trial proceed and what evidence did the jury consider?

1. The procedural arc: two trials, distinct questions

The litigation unfolded in distinct phases: a liability trial in May 2023 where a federal jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded $5 million in damages, and a separate January 2024 trial limited to calculating damages for additional defamatory statements, a structure shaped by Judge Lewis Kaplan’s prior rulings that portions of liability were already established for purposes of the later proceeding ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

2. How the May 2023 liability trial proceeded

The first trial was a nine-day federal proceeding that the jury resolved quickly — deliberating only a few hours — and returned findings that Carroll had proven sexual abuse by a preponderance of the evidence and that Trump had defamed her, with the completed verdict form reflecting affirmative answers on both the battery and defamation questions ^{[2] [6] [1]}.

3. What the jury saw in that liability phase

Jurors were shown Carroll’s account of an incident in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s and heard evidence the court admitted about Trump’s past conduct, including testimony from two other women alleging unrelated assaults and a recording in which Trump described non‑consensual kissing and grabbing, materials the appeals court later described as establishing a “repeated, idiosyncratic pattern of conduct” ^{[6] [2] [4]}.

4. The January 2024 damages trial: narrowed scope, weighty remedies

Because Judge Kaplan ruled that certain facts regarding the alleged assault were already established and that the later trial would focus on damages for defamatory statements, the second jury’s remit was limited to quantifying harm from Trump’s public denials and attacks, yet the evidence presented included Trump’s deposition video and continued public statements that Carroll’s team argued caused reputational harm, emotional distress and threats against her ^{[5] [3] [7]}.

5. Evidence that swayed the damages jurors

The damages jury considered the October 2022 and June 2019 statements at issue, Trump’s deposition — where his denials and comments such as “not my type” were played for jurors — and proof of consequences to Carroll’s career and safety, including lost work, threats and reputational injury; the second jury returned an $83.3 million award reflecting compensatory and punitive elements tied to ongoing attacks ^{[3] [7] [8]}.

6. Defense objections and judicial limits on argument

Trump’s team argued at trial and on appeal that admitting other‑accuser testimony, the Access Hollywood tape and certain materials prejudiced fairness; Judge Kaplan also barred the defense from relitigating the assault’s underlying facts in the damages trial, a limitation the Second Circuit later found did not warrant overturning the verdict ^{[9] [5] [4]}.

7. Speed of deliberations, jury form mechanics and remedies

Both verdicts were notable for brisk jury deliberations in their respective phases and for the use of detailed verdict forms that required jurors to answer sequential questions on abuse, defamation, falsity and damages; the initial $5 million award was explicitly affirmed on appeal, and the later $83.3 million damages judgment centered on proof of ongoing reputational and emotional harms and a punitive ratio the courts later reviewed ^{[6] [2] [8]}.

8. Appeals, competing narratives and hidden agendas

Trump’s appeals framed the trial as tainted by prejudicial evidence and political funding, while advocates for Carroll stressed the probative value of pattern evidence and the real‑world harms she documented; appellate courts uniformly rejected claims that alleged evidentiary rulings denied Trump substantial rights, a legal determination that underpins the judgments but leaves political actors on both sides incentives to reframe the story for constituencies ^{[4] [9] [5]}.

Limitations of the record: reporting reviewed here documents the evidence presented, judge’s preclusion orders, jury findings and appellate outcomes, but does not provide internal juror deliberation transcripts beyond verdict forms, nor does it resolve factual disputes beyond the civil preponderance standard; those are the bounds of the public record cited above ^{[6] [2] [4]}.