What physical, forensic, or digital evidence did prosecutors present against Katie Johnson?

1. What the filings actually are — civil complaints, not criminal indictments

The materials repeatedly discussed in reporting are civil complaints filed by an anonymous plaintiff using the names “Katie Johnson” and “Jane Doe,” first in California and later in New York; these pleadings allege that a 13‑year‑old was recruited and sexually assaulted by Epstein and forced to have sex with Trump in 1994, but they are presented as civil allegations, not as prosecutorial charges with accompanying evidentiary hearings ^{[1] [5] [2]}.

2. Docket and document sources available in reporting

Publicly archived dockets and document repositories show the case caption and filings (for example, an archived docket entry and copies of complaint PDFs have been catalogued online), and media outlets and fact‑checks have summarized those pleadings; those sources are the basis for most public knowledge about the claims rather than criminal‑court exhibits or prosecutor’s evidence lists ^{[3] [6] [4]}.

3. What the complaints allege — narrative detail, not forensic exhibits

The complaint as reported alleges recruitment by an Epstein associate, repeated rape by Epstein, and that the plaintiff was forced to have sex with Trump in New York and Florida in 1994. Reporting and excerpts emphasize the narrative allegations from the plaintiff’s civil filings rather than documenting chain‑of‑custody, DNA results, medical exams, or contemporaneous police reports presented by prosecutors ^{[2] [1]}.

4. Absence of documented physical or forensic evidence in these documents

Available sources here do not describe physical forensic evidence (DNA, hospital records, or forensic testing) presented by prosecutors tied to the Johnson allegations; Snopes, Newsweek, PBS, and other itemizations summarize the complaint and its procedural history but do not cite prosecutor‑introduced forensic exhibits in a criminal case because none are shown in these civil filings and media summaries ^{[2] [1] [7]}.

5. Digital evidence and contemporaneous corroboration — not found in current reporting

Search results and the publicized complaint excerpts do not detail digital evidence (such as emails, photographs, or electronic logs) introduced by prosecutors in support of the Johnson allegations; reporting focuses on the written allegations, the use of pseudonyms, and the irregular procedural history rather than on verified digital forensics ^{[3] [2]}. Available sources do not mention digital‑forensic exhibits.

6. Procedural history that affects evidentiary record

The complaint was filed, refiled, and then withdrawn or dismissed in the mid‑to‑late 2016 period according to media summaries, which constrained any evidentiary development in a public criminal record; the fact that the filings were civil and that some were dismissed or withdrawn is repeatedly noted in the reporting ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Questions about identity and verification raised by reporters

Journalists who attempted to contact “Katie Johnson” reported confusion about whether the person they reached was the same individual named in the complaint, and some accounts and fact‑checks flagged uncertainty about identity and corroboration — a limitation that shows why public records cited here do not substitute for a prosecutor’s evidentiary case ^[2].

8. Competing perspectives and what’s missing from the record

Proponents of the complaint point to the civil filings as evidence that allegations were made and deserve investigation; critics and fact‑checkers note that the cases were dismissed or withdrawn and that public reporting has not produced corroborating forensic or digital exhibits in the way a criminal prosecution would present them ^{[2] [7]}. Available sources do not mention any prosecutorial introduction of physical, forensic, or digital evidence tied to these allegations.

9. Bottom line for readers seeking concrete evidence

If you are looking for prosecutor‑presented physical, forensic, or digital evidence against “Katie Johnson” or introduced in a criminal case, the sources provided here do not contain that material; they document civil complaints, their summaries in news outlets, and archived dockets but do not show criminal‑court evidence or prosecutorial exhibits ^{[3] [4] [1]}.

Limitations: This analysis is limited to the documents and reporting in the provided search results. It does not assert whether such evidence exists outside these sources; it only reports what these sources show or do not mention ^{[3] [2]}.