Trump in court as his lawyers make appeals plea to have his $5m E Jean Carroll verdict sent back for new trial

Your support helps us to tell the story

Support Now

Find out moreClose

As your White House correspondent, I ask the tough questions and seek the answers that matter.

Your support enables me to be in the room, pressing for transparency and accountability. Without your contributions, we wouldn't have the resources to challenge those in power.

Your donation makes it possible for us to keep doing this important work, keeping you informed every step of the way to the November election

Andrew Feinberg

White House Correspondent

Former president Donald Trump appeared in a New York City courthouse Friday morning as his lawyer argued that the evidence used in the E Jean Carroll sexual abuse case should be set aside.

At the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, attorney John Sauer spent approximately 10 minutes asserting that the evidence used in the case where Trump was found liable of sexual abuse was “highly inadmissible” and Trump should be given a new trial.

It was a “quintessential he-said-she-said case”, Sauer said, claiming the accusations, and some witnesses, were politically motivated.

Sauer’s argument is part of Trump’s appeal of the $5 million verdict in the first Carroll v. Trump trial.

In May 2023, a jury found the former president liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman’s in 1996.

But the panel of judges appeared skeptical of Sauer’s argument.

Judge Denny Chin warned Sauer about the uphill battle the former president faces in his appeal.

"It’s very hard to overturn a jury verdict based on evidentiary rulings,” Judge Chin said. “So why should we order a new trial here?"

Carroll, a former magazine writer, accused the former president of pinning her against the wall of the dressing room and forcibly groping her.

Trump vehemently denied the accusation, claiming he “never met” Carroll, despite the two being photographed together in the late 1980s. In return, Carroll sued Trump for defamation, saying his denial of the event while serving as President of the United States, damaged her reputation.

Despite the jury finding Trump liable for sexual abuse, he continued to deny the allegations.

Earlier this year, a jury found Trump liable of defamation again, awarding Carroll $83.3 million in damages. Friday’s oral arguments did not have to do with that case.

Carroll also appeared at the federal court in New York City for the short oral arguments. Her attorney, Roberta Kaplan, disputed Sauer’s arguments saying the case involved “routine application of the rules of evidence.”

Both sides spent approximately 20 minutes going back and forth over the specific evidence used in the case, including the Access Hollywood tape and witness testimony from women who launched similar accusations against Trump.

The fast-talking Sauer argued that the judge who oversaw the case, Judge Lewis Kaplan (no relation to Roberta Kaplan), erred in allowing some of that evidence.

He also said that Judge Kaplan “restricted” cross-examination of witnesses.

Kaplan argued that some of the evidence was properly admitted because Trump had the opportunity to defend himself in court but refused. During the first Carroll trial, the former president did not attend proceedings and chose not to take the stand.

The panel of judges on the Second Circuit will decide at a later date if Trump should be given a new trial.

Minutes after oral arguments wrapped up on Friday morning, the former president headed to Trump Tower where he gave a “press conference” about the appeal and rambled about his other criminal and civil cases, the Biden administration, Carroll’s allegations, his campaign and more.

Despite two separate juries finding the former president liable for defaming Carroll by claiming her story was made up and he never met her, he repeated those falsehoods.

“It’s an appeal of a ridiculous verdict of a woman I have never met,” Trump said.

“She wrote a book and made a ridiculous story up,” he added. “This is a disgraceful case, it’s about a former president of the United States who is now leading in the polls to be president again.”