How did carrol and trump enter the dressing room
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
E. Jean Carroll says she and Donald Trump ended up together inside a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in Manhattan in the mid‑1990s after a chance encounter while shopping; Carroll testified that the door closed, Trump lunged at her and the assault began, a narrative that formed the core of a 2023 civil case that found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation (jury verdict May 2023; $5 million award) [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and court documents consistently place the incident in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room and describe Carroll’s account that the two had been joking about lingerie before entering the fitting room together [1] [2] [4].
1. What Carroll says happened in the store — the sequence that led to the dressing room
Carroll’s published account and trial testimony describe a chance meeting with Trump at Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan in the mid‑1990s, during which he asked her for help picking a gift; the pair moved into the lingerie section, joked about trying items on, and “ended up in a dressing room together, the door of which was shut,” at which point Carroll says Trump forcefully kissed her and then assaulted her [1] [5] [4]. Multiple news outlets and court filings repeat that series of events as Carroll presented it to jurors [3] [6].
2. How the courts and media framed the physical moment the door closed
Court transcripts and press accounts repeatedly highlight Carroll’s description of the moment the dressing‑room door closed: she testified that Trump lunged at her, shoved her against a wall and pulled down her tights before she escaped; juries found sufficient credibility in that narrative to hold Trump civilly liable for sexual abuse in 2023 [7] [8]. Reporting notes that jurors rejected a criminal‑law definition of rape under New York law but did find liability for sexual abuse and for subsequent defamation when Trump denied her account [6] [3].
3. What evidence and witnesses mattered at trial
Carroll’s account was bolstered in the civil trial by how jurors evaluated corroborating context: the court allowed testimony from two other women who accused Trump of similar misconduct and the playing of the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape, rulings Trump’s lawyers later contested on appeal as unfairly prejudicial [9] [3]. The Second Circuit rejected those challenges and affirmed the $5 million award, finding the trial judge’s evidentiary choices fell within permissible discretion [9].
4. The defense account and appellate challenges
Trump’s legal team has consistently denied the account. In appeals and court filings they argued jurors were exposed to inflammatory propensity evidence and that key evidentiary rulings — including allowing other accusers’ testimony and the Access Hollywood tape — tainted the trial. A three‑judge appellate panel and, later, an en banc request denial upheld the lower court’s rulings, and Trump sought Supreme Court review after those losses [4] [9] [2].
5. Points of agreement and dispute across sources
All provided sources agree on the basic frame: Carroll says the incident occurred in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid‑1990s and that a civil jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in 2023 [2] [4] [3]. Sources diverge on characterization and seriousness: some outlets and court findings emphasize the jury’s rejection of a criminal rape finding under New York law, while others present Carroll’s account in graphic terms; Trump’s camp frames the litigation as politically motivated and contestatory of evidentiary fairness [8] [3] [4].
6. What available sources do not mention
Available sources do not mention independent contemporaneous police reports or eyewitness accounts from inside the dressing room at the time of the alleged assault; reporting and the appellate record note there was no police investigation contemporaneous with the mid‑1990s incident as described in Carroll’s later accounts [6] [9]. Sources do not provide DNA test results in the public record cited here beyond mention of Carroll’s 2020 request for Trump’s DNA relative to a black dress [1].
7. Why this detail mattered in court and public debate
How Carroll and Trump “entered the dressing room” mattered legally and politically because it framed whether the encounter was presented as consensual, accidental, or predatory; jurors interpreted the sequence of a friendly shopping exchange turning violent as persuasive enough to assign civil liability. The defense’s strategy centered on undermining credibility and contesting the admissibility of contextual evidence, while Carroll’s lawyers leaned on pattern evidence and the plaintiff’s consistent narrative [9] [3].
Limitations: this summary relies solely on the provided reporting and appellate summaries; for primary trial transcripts or unredacted filings, consult court records referenced in the cited stories [9].