What evidence and witness testimony were decisive in the jury finding Donald Trump liable to E. Jean Carroll?
Executive summary
A Manhattan federal jury in May 2023 found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll (awarding $5 million) and later a separate jury found him liable for defamation (awarding $83.3 million) — findings a Second Circuit panel later affirmed and which Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review [1] [2] [3]. The appeals court explicitly rejected Trump’s contention that trial judge Lewis Kaplan erred by admitting testimony from other accusers and evidence such as the “Access Hollywood” tape, describing the damages as “fair and reasonable” [2] [4].
1. The core testimony that persuaded jurors: Carroll’s own account
E. Jean Carroll testified that a 1990s meeting in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room began as friendly but became a violent sexual assault, and jurors credited that account enough to find Trump liable for sexual abuse in 2023 [3] [1]. Reports emphasize that her in‑court testimony was the central factual account jurors weighed; reporting and appellate rulings focus on the jury’s assessment of credibility rather than forensic physical evidence presented at trial [3] [1].
2. Corroborating and propensity evidence the defense says was decisive
Trump’s lawyers argued that the trial judge allowed “highly inflammatory propensity evidence,” including testimony from two other women who said Trump assaulted them in earlier decades, and that such evidence improperly propped up Carroll’s claims [4] [3]. The defense also criticized admission of the “Access Hollywood” tape and other background material as prejudicial — arguments central to Trump’s appeal to higher courts [2] [4].
3. How the trial judge and appellate court viewed that evidence
Judge Lewis Kaplan allowed the additional accusers to testify and permitted certain evidence, rulings the Second Circuit later reviewed and upheld; the appeals panel concluded the district court did not err in ways warranting a new trial and described the damages as reasonable under the facts [2] [4]. Multiple outlets report the appellate court rejected Trump’s challenge that Kaplan’s evidentiary decisions spoiled the proceedings [4] [1].
4. The interplay between the abuse finding and the defamation verdict
The jury’s finding of sexual abuse in the first trial carried legal weight in a later defamation trial: one court’s ruling made Trump “automatically liable” in a separate defamation suit, and a later jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million after finding defamation by Trump [5] [1]. News coverage notes the sequence: the abuse liability influenced the damage phase and subsequent litigation, a key reason the evidentiary record from the first trial remains contested [1] [5].
5. What the government and high courts have weighed in on so far
Trump has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the $5 million abuse verdict, arguing trial errors and improper evidence; the Justice Department has filed briefs in related questions about presidential immunity in the broader litigation, and the Second Circuit refused en banc rehearing before upholding the verdict [6] [7]. Media reports emphasize that whether the Supreme Court will hear the petition is uncertain [8] [6].
6. Competing narratives and the limits of available reporting
Trump’s legal team characterizes Carroll’s claims as “implausible” and politically motivated and frames the trial rulings as out of step with evidence rules; outlets relay those arguments directly from the petition [9] [4]. Conversely, appellate judges and outlets reporting the affirmance describe the jury’s awards as “fair and reasonable” and have rejected claims that evidentiary rulings warranted a new trial [2] [4]. Available sources do not mention detailed forensic corroboration beyond witness testimony and the cited background materials; they focus on credibility findings and legal disputes over admissibility [3] [2].
7. Why the admissibility fight matters going forward
The contested evidentiary rulings — i.e., allowing other accusers and certain tapes and background material — are the crux of Trump’s Supreme Court petition because they shaped what jurors heard when assessing Carroll’s credibility [4] [3]. If the Supreme Court or an appellate court were to find reversible error in those rulings, it could undo or reshape the civil findings; conversely, courts so far have found the trial judge within his discretion [4] [2].
8. Bottom line for readers
The decisive material cited in contemporary reporting is principally Carroll’s testimony, corroborating witness testimony from two other accusers as admitted by the trial judge, and contextual evidence (like the “Access Hollywood” tape) that the defense says prejudiced jurors; appellate courts have reviewed and, to date, sustained the trial record and verdicts [3] [2] [4]. Whether the Supreme Court will accept Trump’s plea to overturn those rulings remains an open question and is the next consequential stage reported across outlets [6] [8].