What specific evidence (documents, photos, audio) have plaintiffs presented in Trump's recent sexual misconduct cases?
Executive summary
Plaintiffs in recent civil cases against Donald Trump have relied chiefly on witness testimony, a 2005 audio recording in which Trump describes nonconsensual kissing and groping, and expert testimony about trauma — not on new contemporaneous photographs or forensic documents made public in the cited reporting (e.g., the 2005 recording and testimony by two additional women were admitted at trial) [1] [2] [3]. Courts have treated the other-witness testimony and the 2005 recording as admissible propensity evidence under federal rules in at least one high‑profile case [1].
1. Testimony is the central evidentiary core
In E. Jean Carroll’s trial the principal evidence as to liability was Carroll’s own live testimony and the testimony of two other women — Natasha Stoynoff and Jessica Leeds — who described separate episodes of alleged misconduct decades apart; courts and trial reporting emphasize those live accounts as the bulk of plaintiffs’ proof [3] [2]. News outlets and legal summaries note that Carroll’s damages presentation also rested on testimony from a clinical psychologist about trauma and emotional harm [3] [4].
2. The 2005 audio recording has been a pivotal documentary exhibit
Appellate and trial records show a 2005 recording in which Trump described kissing and grabbing women without consent was admitted as evidence under Rules 413/415 and cited by plaintiffs to demonstrate pattern and intent; the Second Circuit affirmed that admission as not erroneous [1]. Multiple reports and filings list that recorded conversation among the evidentiary materials the jury heard [1] [5].
3. Courts allowed “other-acts” propensity evidence
Federal Rules of Evidence permitting propensity proof in sexual-assault cases were invoked by the trial judge to admit testimony from other women and the 2005 recording; appellate decisions upheld those rulings, saying they were permissible under Rules 413 and 415 [1]. Advocacy analysis of the trial likewise highlights how such “did it once, likely did it again” proof strengthened Carroll’s account in the jury’s view [2].
4. Little public reporting of contemporaneous photos or new forensic documents
Available reporting and court opinions emphasize testimony and the 2005 recording rather than contemporaneous photographic evidence or newly disclosed forensic documents; trial coverage and the court record describe Carroll’s case as “all of the evidence” consisting primarily of witness testimony and expert psychological evidence [3] [4]. If plaintiffs introduced other specific photographs or forensic reports, those items are not described in the supplied sources (not found in current reporting).
5. Defendants’ strategy and evidentiary disputes
Trump’s legal team repeatedly sought to exclude other-witness testimony and the 2005 recording as improper propensity evidence; judges rejected those motions and appellate courts affirmed the admissibility, while defense filings characterize those rulings as indefensible and pledge further appeal — including a petition to the Supreme Court challenging evidentiary rulings [6] [5] [1]. Coverage also records that Trump’s deposition and public statements were used by plaintiffs in their narrative, and the defense primarily sought to discredit plaintiffs on cross-examination [6] [3].
6. What juries were asked to decide and how evidence was framed
Jury interrogatories in Carroll’s trial separated claims of rape, sexual abuse and forcible touching; jurors found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation but not rape, a distinction the record ties directly to the evidence presented — testimony, the recording, and expert testimony about trauma — and to how the judge explained legal definitions to the jury [4] [6].
7. Broader context and competing perspectives
Advocacy pieces and legal commentary characterize the admitted evidence as compelling and appropriate under the rules for sexual‑assault litigation, saying it added credibility to Carroll [2]. Trump’s camp portrays the same evidence as inflammatory and improper propensity proof and continues to press appellate remedies and Supreme Court review [5] [6]. Readers should note these are opposing legal and rhetorical frames drawn from the same record [1] [5].
Limitations: reporting and court summaries in the provided sources focus on testimony, a 2005 recording, and expert evidence; they do not catalogue any contemporaneous photos, medical records, or other forensic exhibits as presented by plaintiffs (not found in current reporting).