What evidence was presented in the E. Jean Carroll case against Trump?

1. Why Carroll’s testimony stood at the center — vivid detail, timing, and corroboration that convinced jurors

E. Jean Carroll’s courtroom account was the centerpiece: she testified in detail about being assaulted in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s, describing forced penetration and immediate pain and long-term emotional harm, and jurors credited that testimony sufficiently to find liability for sexual abuse and defamation ^{[4] [7]}. Her credibility was buttressed by two friends she told shortly after the alleged incident—often described as “outcry” witnesses—and by a photograph of Ms. Carroll with Mr. Trump from the 1980s that undercut his claim they had never met, creating a narrative thread from the 1980s social connection through the alleged 1990s assault and to his later public denials ^{[8] [2]}.

2. Additional witness evidence and the controversial use of prior-act testimony — pattern or prejudicial overreach?

The trial included testimony from two other women, Natasha Stoynoff and Jessica Leeds, who alleged separate past sexual assaults by Mr. Trump; that testimony was admitted under federal rules allowing evidence of prior sexual misconduct to show propensity or pattern and was presented to show consistency with Carroll’s allegations ^{[6] [9]}. Defendants argued that admitting such testimony was highly prejudicial and amounted to “propensity” evidence the jury should not use to infer guilt from character alone, while proponents and the judge ruled that the testimony was relevant to show a pattern of behavior and corroborative context; appeals by Mr. Trump contend the rulings were legally indefensible ^{[1] [9]}.

3. Documentary and recorded evidence — the Access Hollywood tape, deposition, and photos that shaped the narrative

The prosecution used multiple non-witness items: the 2005 Access Hollywood recording in which Mr. Trump spoke about groping women was admitted to show a pattern of sexual conduct and disposition, a photograph showing Carroll and Trump together in the 1980s contradicted Trump’s denial of acquaintance, and Mr. Trump’s own October 2022 deposition and public denials were read to jurors as statements causing defamation and reputational harm ^{[5] [8] [2]}. Those materials tied the allegation to later public statements and bolstered Carroll’s defamation claim, enabling juries to award compensatory and punitive damages for emotional and reputational injury ^{[7] [2]}.

4. The defenses, legal contests, verdicts, and the appellate fight that followed

Mr. Trump’s lawyers emphasized the absence of physical or DNA evidence, the lack of police reports or contemporaneous complaints, and argued the verdicts rested on inadmissible or inflammatory evidence; they have pursued appeals up to the Supreme Court, characterizing trial rulings as legally flawed ^[1]. Two juries found Mr. Trump liable: a May 2023 verdict found liability for sexual abuse and defamation with multimillion-dollar awards, and a subsequent defamation proceeding increased total awards to figures reported as both $5 million and, across cases, roughly $88.3 million in different accounts; appellate courts have at times upheld major aspects of the rulings while the defense continues to challenge evidentiary and legal decisions ^{[1] [2] [8]}.