What evidence has been presented alleging sexual crimes by Donald Trump?
Executive summary
A concrete body of evidence was presented in the E. Jean Carroll civil trial that led a jury to find Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the mid‑1990s and for defaming her, including Carroll’s testimony, contemporaneous reports to friends, a 1987 photograph, testimony from other women and a 2005 recording; that verdict and its upholding on appeal are the clearest legal findings of sexual wrongdoing reported in the provided sources [1] [2] [3]. Beyond Carroll, reporting catalogs at least two dozen women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct since the 1970s, with varying types of corroboration cited by journalists — but no criminal convictions tied to those public accusations in the sources provided [4] [5].
1. The Carroll trial: testimony, corroboration and a jury verdict
E. Jean Carroll’s allegation that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid‑1990s was proven to a civil jury by testimony from Carroll herself, testimony from two friends she said she told soon after the event, a photograph showing Carroll with Trump in 1987, and other supporting evidence the court allowed, and a New York jury awarded Carroll $5 million for sexual abuse and defamation [1] [2] [6]. Courts and commentators pointed to the combination of Carroll’s contemporaneous out‑reports, the “other acts” testimony by two women and the 2005 Access Hollywood recording as material that helped the jury assess credibility under civil standards [1] [7] [8].
2. Corroboration beyond Carroll: patterns, witnesses and documentary traces
News organizations and timeline pieces assembled dozens of allegations stretching back decades, and some accusers provided physical or documentary corroboration — for example, a former model saying she had ticket stubs and photos showing she sat next to Trump at the 1997 US Open, and other accusers supplying contemporaneous witnesses or corroborators to support their accounts [9]. Journalistic compilations emphasize a pattern that reporters and some courts considered probative: multiple accusations of non‑consensual groping or forced kissing combined with Trump’s 2005 Access Hollywood remarks about grabbing women, which surfaced publicly and was admitted in Carroll’s litigation [9] [7].
3. Civil findings versus criminal charges: different standards and outcomes
While a federal jury found Trump civilly liable for sexual abuse of Carroll and defamation — a verdict upheld on appeal — the record in these sources is explicit that Trump has not been criminally convicted for sexual misconduct and that criminal prosecutions differ by burden of proof and evidentiary rules [2] [5]. Some civil suits were withdrawn or dismissed in the past, and prosecutors in reported matters have at times declined to pursue criminal charges for lack of sufficient evidence for conviction, underscoring the difference between public accusations, civil liability and criminal indictment [10] [11].
4. How courts treated “pattern” evidence: Rules 413/415 and appellate rulings
Federal courts allowed testimony from other women and the 2005 recording under Federal Rules of Evidence that permit evidence of other sexual assaults to be admitted in sexual‑assault civil cases; appellate courts found those rulings permissible and affirmed the verdict, a legal pathway that amplified Carroll’s credibility to jurors by showing alleged similar conduct [7] [3]. Advocacy law scholars and trial commentators noted that this “propensity” evidence, while controversial, is specifically permitted in sexual‑assault civil litigation and can change how juries weigh isolated allegations [12].
5. Denials, contested facts and the limits of available reporting
Trump has consistently denied all allegations and has characterized them as politically motivated or false; he and his lawyers have challenged evidentiary rulings and argued there were no eyewitnesses, no video and no police report in Carroll’s claim — points that have been presented at higher courts during appeals and in public filings [13] [6]. The reporting supplied documents the civil verdict and multiple accusations and corroborating materials in some cases, but it does not provide exhaustive proof for every allegation, nor does it substitute for results of criminal investigations where prosecutors have declined or been unable to bring charges; the public record in these sources is therefore strongest for the Carroll civil finding and more fragmentary for many other individual claims [2] [4].