What evidence did the juries cite in E. Jean Carroll’s trials and how did courts rule on its admissibility?
Executive summary
Juries in E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuits relied on Carroll’s own testimony, contemporaneous and later statements, corroborating witness accounts and contextual materials — notably testimonies from two other women and a 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording — to find Donald Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation; trial and appellate judges repeatedly ruled that much of that evidence was admissible under federal rules allowing other-acts evidence in sexual-assault cases and upheld the verdicts [1] [2] [3]. Courts also imposed limits: they excluded certain rebuttal topics (including DNA discussion) and confined some cross‑examination themes, decisions that Trump’s lawyers have pressed on appeal and in Supreme Court filings [4] [5] [6].
1. The core evidence juries relied on: Carroll’s testimony and contemporaneous claims
The juries’ factual determinations flowed first from E. Jean Carroll’s direct testimony about an encounter in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid‑1990s and from her contemporaneous public statements, which the juries treated as the nucleus of the case that Trump sexually abused her and later defamed her when he publicly denied the allegation [1] [2]. In the May 2023 civil trial a Manhattan jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded Carroll $5 million after deliberations that the press reported were driven by Carroll’s account and how the defense challenged its veracity [1]. In the January 2024 jury that considered separate defamation claims, jurors awarded Carroll approximately $83.3 million, again grounded in their assessment of her testimony and evidence presented about the impact of Trump’s public denials [2].
2. Propensity and corroborating evidence the juries heard: other women and a 2005 tape
Carroll’s legal team introduced testimony from two other women who said Trump had groped them in earlier encounters and also played the 2005 Access Hollywood recording in which Trump described grabbing and kissing women without consent; Carroll’s lawyers argued those items showed a pattern or propensity that made her account more believable, and juries heard that material as corroborating context [4] [3]. The district judge permitted the tape and those witness accounts at trial, and the Second Circuit later held the district court acted within the Federal Rules of Evidence — specifically Rules 413 and 415, which permit evidence of other sexual assaults in sexual‑assault proceedings — when admitting them [4] [3].
3. What judges excluded and why: limits on forensic and irrelevant rebuttal evidence
The trial judge also drew firm boundaries: discussion of DNA testing and the absence or presence of DNA on Carroll’s dress was barred from jury consideration, and the defense was restricted from arguing certain topics such as Carroll’s sexual history or the identity of her counsel paying fees, with the court reasoning those matters were unduly prejudicial or irrelevant to the disputed facts jurors needed to decide [4] [5]. The judge’s DNA ruling — excluding debate over why certain tests were not pursued — became a focal point of later defense complaints that jurors were denied context bearing on Carroll’s credibility [5].
4. Appellate and post‑trial rulings: admissibility upheld, verdicts sustained
After the verdicts, Trump appealed, arguing among other things that the admission of the other‑acts testimony and the Access Hollywood tape was improper “propensity” evidence; the Second Circuit rejected those claims, holding the district court did not err under Rules 413 and 415 and affirming the $5 million award in the sexual‑abuse/defamation suit [3]. Trial courts likewise denied requests for new trials, finding the record supported the juries’ conclusions and preserving the verdicts and damages [7] [8]. Conservative and Trump‑aligned groups have continued to press evidentiary complaints to higher tribunals, including noting what they call the prejudicial effect of decades‑old uncorroborated accusations and the court’s exclusion of certain rebuttal evidence [5] [9].
5. The broader legal framing and contesting narratives
Judges framed admissibility through evolving federal rules that allow other‑acts sexual‑assault evidence, a shift defense lawyers argue lowers traditional balancing protections against unfair prejudice; proponents counter that such evidence is precisely the type jurors need when there are no eyewitnesses or forensic proof decades after the event [10] [3]. Both sides continue to litigate those tensions up the appeals chain and into Supreme Court filings seeking review of evidentiary boundaries and the verdicts themselves [9] [11].