What specific pieces of evidence did the plaintiff present to prove sexual assault in the E. Jean Carroll v. Donald Trump trial?

1. Carroll’s firsthand testimony — the core narrative

E. Jean Carroll testified in detail about the encounter she says happened in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid‑1990s; her live testimony was the centerpiece of the plaintiff’s case and was the factual meat the jury relied on when finding sexual abuse occurred ^{[4] [2]}. Carroll’s account covered both the alleged physical acts and the emotional harm she says followed; trial coverage and subsequent rulings treat her testimony as the nucleus of the plaintiff’s proof ^[2].

2. Immediate‑reaction witnesses — two friends Carroll said she told

Carroll presented testimony from two friends whom she said she informed shortly after the alleged assault; the lawyers used those witness statements to rebut defenses that she fabricated the memory years later and to show contemporaneous reaction and reporting to confidantes ^[1]. The district court admitted that evidence and appellate review did not find its admission to have prejudiced the outcome ^[2].

3. Documentary context — photograph and deposition excerpts

The plaintiff’s team introduced a 1987 photograph showing Carroll and Trump at the same event and played portions of Trump’s October 2022 deposition; the photograph and deposition excerpts were used to place both people in the same social circles historically and to allow jurors to evaluate credibility — including hearing Trump’s own words under oath ^{[1] [4]}. The deposition material was part of the plaintiff’s case‑in‑chief and, per post‑trial opinions, the defense did not introduce separate evidence to rebut the core narrative ^[5].

4. Propensity and pattern evidence — other accusers and the Access Hollywood tape

Judge Lewis Kaplan admitted testimony from two other women who alleged separate incidents of sexual misconduct by Trump, and the plaintiff played the 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump bragged about nonconsensual grabbing; the defense later called such material “highly inflammatory propensity evidence,” and Trump has argued on appeal that admitting it was reversible error ^{[3] [6]}. The Second Circuit, however, concluded the evidentiary rulings were within permissible bounds and that any potential errors were harmless in affirming the $5 million award ^[2].

5. What the defense said and what it did not produce at trial

Trump’s legal team focused on discrediting Carroll’s account, arguing fabrication and political motive, and pointed to the absence of eyewitnesses, a police report, or video as part of that attack ^{[7] [4]}. Notably, in the civil trial that produced the $5 million verdict the defense introduced no affirmative case of its own beyond cross‑examination and motions; the court’s opinion records that Carroll’s case in chief constituted essentially all the evidence at trial ^[5].

6. Judicial rulings shaping what jurors saw

Judge Kaplan made a series of pretrial and trial rulings that constrained both sides — for example, excluding DNA discussion and limiting certain lines of argument — but he allowed the other‑accuser testimony and the Access Hollywood tape. Trump's lawyers have repeatedly sought appellate and Supreme Court review, arguing the evidentiary choices improperly influenced jurors; appellate courts so far have upheld the trial court’s discretion ^{[1] [6] [2]}.

7. Limits and competing perspectives

Proponents of Carroll’s presentation argued the combination of her testimony, contemporaneous statements to friends, corroborating photographs/deposition context, and pattern evidence gave jurors a full factual picture that supported liability ^{[2] [1]}. Critics — including Trump’s appellate filings and press statements — say there were no eyewitnesses, no police report, and no video of the incident and that the propensity evidence was unfairly prejudicial ^{[7] [6]}. The courts, however, have so far sided with the trial judge’s balancing of probative value versus prejudice ^[2].

If you want, I can compile the trial’s listed exhibits and witness names from the court opinion and trial transcripts to map each item to the jury charge and verdict reasoning (available sources do not mention the full exhibit list in the provided reporting).