What was the final verdict and damages awarded in E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit against Donald Trump?

1. What the juries decided and the dollar amounts

In the first civil trial concluded in May 2023, jurors found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll (not for rape) and for defaming her in statements tied to the same incident; that verdict produced a $5 million damages award against Trump ^{[1] [2]}. In a separate but related 2024 proceeding, another jury awarded Carroll approximately $83.3 million for additional defamatory statements Trump made later; reporting treats the $5 million abuse/defamation judgment and the $83.3 million defamation judgment as distinct but related outcomes from Carroll’s multi-part litigation ^{[1] [2]}.

2. How the courts have treated those awards on appeal

A federal appeals court panel upheld the $5 million verdict, finding the trial judge did not err in ways that would require a new trial; the same appeals process affirmed the $83.3 million defamation award as “reasonable in light of the extraordinary and egregious facts,” and rejected a number of Trump’s legal challenges ^{[2] [4]}. Trump’s requests for further review at the full appellate level (en banc) were denied, and his legal team has proceeded to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the $5 million verdict ^{[5] [3]}.

3. What legal theories produced the different outcomes

Jurors were asked to evaluate several potential forms of battery under New York law; they did not find Trump liable for rape (the narrow statutory definition used in the instruction), but they did find him liable for the lesser offence of sexual abuse based on the evidence presented — a distinction the trial judge described in his instructions to the jury ^{[5] [6]}. The additional larger defamation award flowed from a later trial where jurors concluded Trump’s subsequent public statements about Carroll were defamatory, leading to separate compensatory and punitive awards ^{[1] [4]}.

4. What Trump’s lawyers argue on appeal

Trump’s legal team argues the trial judge made a “series of indefensible evidentiary rulings,” improperly admitting what they call “highly inflammatory propensity evidence,” including testimony from other women; they say those rulings and other errors warped how the jury viewed the facts and warrant reversal ^{[7] [8]}. The lawyers also label Carroll’s account “implausible” and politically motivated in their Supreme Court petition ^{[8] [9]}.

5. What Carroll’s side and some commentators say

Carroll’s supporters and some commentators treat the verdicts as significant accountability for a powerful public figure and note the difficulty survivors often face in civil actions; civil-rights advocates framed her win as an example of a survivor succeeding against a prominent defendant ^{[10] [11]}. Reporting that the appeals court called the awards “fair and reasonable” underscores that at least one federal panel found the verdicts supported by the record ^{[7] [4]}.

6. Current posture and practical consequences

As of the most recent reporting in these sources, Trump has asked the Supreme Court to review and overturn the $5 million jury verdict; the high court’s decision whether to take the case will determine whether those particular findings are revisited, while the larger $83.3 million defamation judgment has also survived appeal and remains a separate judgment Trump is contesting ^{[3] [2] [1]}. If the Supreme Court declines review, the verdicts and the damages as affirmed by the appeals court would remain in place ^[11].

7. Limits of available reporting and open questions

Available sources document the jury findings, the $5 million award, the separate $83.3 million defamation award, and the appeals filings, but they do not offer a full accounting here of post-appeal collections steps, any offsets or bond postings, or whether payments have actually been made — those operational details are not mentioned in the cited reporting ^{[2] [1] [3]}. Sources also report competing characterizations — Trump’s team calls the rulings part of “liberal lawfare,” while Carroll’s backers frame the outcomes as vindication — illustrating that legal facts and political framing are entwined in coverage ^{[8] [11]}.

Bottom line: juries awarded Carroll $5 million in the 2023 civil sexual-abuse/defamation case and about $83.3 million in a later defamation trial; both awards have been upheld on appeal and are the subject of continued appellate and Supreme Court litigation ^{[1] [2] [3]}.