What evidence did the juries cite in the E. Jean Carroll trials that persuaded them to find Trump liable?
Executive summary
A New York jury found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll and for defaming her after she went public with her accusations, relying on Carroll’s account plus corroborating and contextual evidence presented at trial; the jury awarded $5 million in the first trial and later juries assessed far larger sums for subsequent defamation findings [1] [2]. Key items the jurors heard included Carroll’s testimony, contemporaneous conversations she had with friends, a dated photograph, testimony from other women who accused Trump of similar conduct, the 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording, and footage from Trump’s own 2022 deposition — all of which the courts later found admissible and influential [3] [4] [2] [1] [5].
1. Carroll’s direct testimony and contemporaneous reports: the core of the jury’s decision
The jurors heard E. Jean Carroll describe the alleged 1990s dressing-room encounter in detail and were shown testimony that she told friends about the attack soon afterward — testimony the jury credited under the civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence when answering that Trump had sexually abused her [4] [6].
2. Corroborating physical and historical context: the photo and the timeline
Prosecutors put before the jury a decade-old photograph showing Carroll and Trump together and used that and other historical references to place Carroll and Trump in the same social and temporal orbit, undermining defense claims of misidentification and supporting jurors’ acceptance of her recollection of events in the 1990s [3] [4].
3. Pattern evidence: other accusers and the Access Hollywood tape
The jury was permitted to hear testimony from two other women who said Trump had assaulted them, and the judge allowed an excerpt of the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump described grabbing women’s genitals — both were offered as evidence of a pattern or context for the alleged behavior and the appeals court later concluded those rulings fell within the trial judge’s discretion [2] [1] [7].
4. Trump’s own deposition and public statements: self-incrimination by deed and words
A video of Trump’s October 2022 deposition, in which he emphatically denied Carroll’s account and made remarks the defense argued were exculpatory while Carroll’s team argued they were damaging, was shown to jurors; later defamation findings emphasized his post-accusation attacks, which the jury found proved actual malice by clear and convincing evidence [6] [8].
5. Legal framing and the jury’s specific findings — abuse, not statutory rape; defamation by a higher bar
The verdict form shows jurors separately answered whether Trump had raped Carroll under New York’s narrow statutory definition and whether he had sexually abused her; they declined the rape finding but found sexual abuse by a preponderance of evidence, and they found defamation by the higher clear-and-convincing standard after concluding his statements were false and made with actual malice [4] [6].
6. How jurors weighed credibility amid competing narratives and subsequent appeals
Defense counsel emphasized the absence of physical or DNA evidence and argued jurors were prejudiced by other accusers’ testimony and the Access Hollywood excerpt, and Trump later argued those evidentiary rulings warranted reversal; appellate courts, however, rejected those challenges and the trial judge and appeals opinions concluded the evidence admitted was neither improper nor outcome-determinative, with Judge Kaplan noting the jury’s findings effectively credited Carroll’s account [9] [7] [10].
7. The broader picture: why the combination mattered more than any single exhibit
What persuaded jurors was not a lone smoking gun but the cumulative weight of Carroll’s consistent testimony, contemporaneous reports to friends, documentary context (the photo), corroborative testimony from other accusers, the Access Hollywood tape showing a proclivity to boast about nonconsensual grabbing, and Trump’s deposition and public denials that jurors found both false and malicious for purposes of the defamation claims — a mosaic the courts later upheld as sufficient to support liability [1] [2] [6] [5].