Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Verdict Reached In E. Jean Caroll's Civil Case Against Trump; Jury Finds Trump Liable For Sexually Abusing & Defaming E. Jean Caroll. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired May 09, 2023 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: We're also told that just a short time ago, E. Jean Carroll, of course, the former president's accuser, the one who brought this case, she has now entered the courtroom where she, among others present, and there she is arriving at the courthouse there in Manhattan where she and others present will hear the jury read this verdict.

Again, we are told that to begin in just a few seconds now at the top of the hour. Of course, we're going to bring it to you live. Let me toss to my colleagues Brianna and Boris here as we wait for, well, quite a momentous decision here from the Manhattan jury.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Yes, and at any moment, we are awaiting this verdict. Obviously, a huge case, one of many legal challenges the former president is facing, perhaps the most personal out of many women that have accused him in the past of sexual assault, this one actually going to court. Again, not a criminal case, but nevertheless, potentially accountability for one of the many accusations Donald Trump has had against him.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yes, it certainly will be. And depending on what we find out, obviously, this could be critical.

SANCHEZ: Right.

KEILAR: I do want to bring in Jean Casarez to join us. Jean, as we await what the jury is going to determine here if the former president is liable or not in this civil case, what are you looking for and are you surprised how quickly this jury has come to a verdict?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It has come back very quickly. I've covered so many sexual assault cases for CNN from Harvey Weinstein to Bill Cosby, two cases. I was also in that exact courtroom several months ago for Kevin Spacey's civil trial.

And when you have a case like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, and I saw these prior bad act witnesses come in, these other women that were not part of the actual charges, but were able to show that pattern of conduct, that intent, that absence of mistake, it creates a very strong case for the plaintiff as in this case or the prosecution.

I mean, really an overwhelmingly strong case. It also gives the other side, which would be Trump's side, an avenue for appeal. When I was in the Kevin Spacey courtroom several months ago, same judge, it was under the victim Survivors Act, which is this same act.

And I saw firsthand the challenges when a case is so old because memories can be tainted, witnesses are gone. You can't remember things.

Now, in this case, there was a lot of consistency, though, there were not the memory lapses that there was in the Kevin Spacey. And Kevin Spacey was not found liable for the sexual assault of a teenager back in the 1970s.

But in this case, there was a lot of consistency with the witnesses. And so I think it comes down to whether the jury believes E. Jean Carroll, because Donald Trump spoke his mind, deposition. That's what it is. But with E. Jean Carroll, does the jury believe her more likely than not that this happened.

SCIUTTO: Yes. And to your point, Donald Trump, we should note, did not put on a defense in this trial and, of course, did not take the opportunity to testify.

CASAREZ: But the jury knew that from the beginning. Tacopina told the jury, our defense will be in cross-examination and many times that is the case. And with a civil case, it's important to remember the defendant doesn't have to be in the courtroom. And there should have been a jury instruction telling the jury that in a civil case, the defendant does not have to be saying that. The plaintiff's side made everything they could out of that because when someone is not in the courtroom, it makes it appear as though they don't care.

KEILAR: And so much of that cross-examination, right, was trying to poke holes in E. Jean Carroll's story of what she had said --

CASAREZ: Right.

KEILAR: -- even just sort of the description of how everything had gone down --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

KEILAR: -- that she was in heels and it will be really interesting to see if the jury bought any of that. It sounds like it's entirely possible that they could have.

SCIUTTO: Right. An impugning her credibility throughout, right?

SANCHEZ: Right.

SCIUTTO: Implying a look for attention as often happens in cases like this.

SANCHEZ: Questioning her emotional state --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SANCHEZ: -- questioning the date where it happened. She didn't have a precise date and so the attorneys went after her for that. We want to bring in CNN Legal Analyst former federal prosecutor,

Jennifer Rodgers, to the conversation and let our viewers know that behind these doors in the courtroom right now both sides are anticipating the verdict from the jury. Both Trump's attorneys are there as well as E. Jean Carroll. We saw her walk in a moment ago.

Jennifer, it really stands out to me that this jury got 90 minutes, roughly, of instructions and deliberated for about two and a half hours only. What does that say to you?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, we'll find out soon enough, but usually if it's an uneven case, if one side has much more evidence than the other side, then a quick verdict favors the side with the evidence. So I would suggest it probably means they're going to find for E. Jean Carroll here. That's where the weight of the evidence was.

You could see a juror or two having some problems and maybe stretching out the deliberations.

[15:05:05]

But if no one did that, it says to me, they're probably going with the weight of the evidence and that would be a finding for E. Jean Carroll.

SCIUTTO: Jennifer, just to context-wise, in the span of weeks then we would have a former president indicted by Manhattan district attorney, of course, and a former president. Again, we don't know the outcome of this, but --

KEILAR: We will shortly.

SCIUTTO: -- if it was liable - we will know because it's being read in the courtroom right now. This would be quite remarkable context to remind people of.

KEILAR: It certainly would be. The verdict being read right now, the jury is in the courtroom right now, Jennifer. So we should be finding out very soon. But as Jim said, potentially very remarkable here.

RODGERS: Well, it takes a long time for things to make their way through the justice system, civil and criminal. A lot of these investigations, of course, have been underway for years now. It is kind of surprising, I guess, or just coincidentally, they're all kind of coming to a head this summer. But we have this civil case, another civil case by Letitia James, the New York Attorney General slated for October, one charged criminal case.

And I think likely, at least two others, maybe three coming down the pike in the next couple of months. So all of his legal troubles, while taking a long time to go through their paces to get to this stage do seem to be converging on him in relatively short order here.

SANCHEZ: And the former president hasn't been shy about discussing these cases on social media. In fact, just a short while ago, there was a conversation about the jury potentially having instructions, additional instructions from the judge about something that Trump recently posted on social media, specifically about this case.

SCIUTTO: He's not been shy to make public comments about ongoing investigations or cases in multiple situations we've seen.

SANCHEZ: Yeah.

KEILAR: We are awaiting this. Right now, the verdict being read, the jury is in the room right now. Jennifer, I just wonder what you think about as we looked at, I would say - this is my question, as we looked at the cross-examination being very much the case that Trump and his attorneys put forward, because obviously Trump was not there, that strategy of trying to poke holes in an alleged rape victims claims.

I think that is something that would have been very effective even a decade ago, maybe two decades ago. I wonder now as juries, as Americans have become more informed about these kinds of things if that is something that does become potentially less effective.

RODGERS: I think that's true, Brianna. I think you're right. I mean, as the psychologist in this case testified, as people start to learn more about how victims actually react to trauma, why it takes victims so long to come forward, how hard it is for victims not to blame themselves, they do blame themselves and why they do as we all learn more about that, I do think the jurors are more likely to say it makes sense that she would behave that way. This is not - it's not questionable why she did that.

KEILAR: I'm going to interrupt you, Jennifer. I'm so sorry. We need to get to Paula Reid, because this verdict has just been read and she's going to tell us what happened. Paula?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So this jury has found that former President Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll, which means that they have found him liable for battery. This is a form of sexual assault, though they did not find that he raped her. This is still a finding of battery and of sexual assault. So this is a win for E. Jean Carroll.

But we are still hearing each of the individual questions and the findings from this jury. But this just in, this jury has found that former President Trump did sexually abused E. Jean Carroll and is liable for battery.

SCIUTTO: We also have the news that the jury has awarded. This is one of the several questions they had to address was the amount of damages, because this is not a criminal case. This is a civil case, so the punishment in effect is financial, $2 million in damages.

Jennifer Rodgers is still with us. This was one of multiple questions they had to answer this jury. One of which is whether his conduct constituted rape, sexual abuse or forcible touching. They came into, I suppose you could call it the middle ground there, sexual abuse here.

Can you tell us the significance of that and how you come to that given the standard in a civil trial, which is a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to beyond the reasonable doubt as you would have in a criminal case?

RODGERS: Well, the verdict form gave them these three choices and it was either rape or sexual assault or unwanted touching. And any of them creates liability. It's just which one they chose would give us more information about what they believed. And she gave evidence of all of them. She said that he had raped her. She described what happened and said that he had actually penetrated her.

[15:10:03]

But the jury may have found that that wasn't certain enough for them, they may have found it unlikely that he would have managed physically to do that. We're not sure, of course, what the jury found, but the fact that they found that she was sexually abused by him, sexually assaulted by him means that they believe her, believe her account and they're going to award damages. We'll see how much and there's also the possibility of punitive damages here.

SANCHEZ: And Jennifer, stand by for a moment. We want to get back out to Paula Reid because we are learning that the jury has also made a decision on the question of defamation, the second big part of this. Paula?

REID: Yes. The jury has found that former President Trump's statements about E. Jean Carroll's accusations, calling them false and a hoax was defamatory. So they do find him liable for defamation. This is a win for E. Jean Carroll. She has sued in civil court former President Trump for battery and defamation, and she has prevailed on both claims.

Now, as you said multiple times, this is not a criminal trial. This is a civil case. So the standards are lower. It is not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a preponderance of the evidence on battery. But this is really, truly a victory for E. Jean Carroll and we're getting the total on damages right now.

SCIUTTO: Our understanding is $2 million in damages for the sexual abuse, close to $3 million, as I understand it, for defamation. And I think we should take a moment here as we cover this, because as we referenced just a few minutes ago, in the span of weeks, a former president indicted on 34 felony counts by a Manhattan DA, this for hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and now found liable, we should say, not guilty, liable in a civil case for, one, sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll and, two, defamation to the tune of financial damages now approaching $5 million.

This is a remarkable moments in U.S. political history. I think we should lay that out quite clearly.

SANCHEZ: And perhaps not the last moment in the next few months or weeks that we're going to see this president facing potentially more charges in Fulton County, Georgia, and obviously, the special counsel investigating Trump's involvement in January 6th and the classified documents case as well.

SCIUTTO: Yes. SANCHEZ: Let's pivot now to Dave Aronberg who has been standing by for

us. Just - Dave, your reaction to this decision, apparently more than $5 million for defamation and battery.

DAVE ARONBERG, STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY: Yes, I'm not surprised. Now, once they found that Trump did it, then they're going to find out - find that he committed defamation, because afterwards he said he didn't do it. She's a liar. So one went with the other.

But as far as the verdict itself, I'm not surprised, because when you saw this very quick verdict, that look like a quick compromise. Like right away they said, all right, let's just resolve it by - yes, by splitting the baby and let's do the second count, which is not rape, but it's something really serious.

It requires the touching of a sexual or intimate part of another without that person's consent. And so that is something that's going to be worn as an albatross around the former president's neck throughout the campaign. He can try to say the judge was biased, the jury was biased, but at some point people are going to be like, wow, this is your candidate for president, not only he's been indicted, but he's been found liable for unwanted sexual touching, sexual assault, essentially, in New York.

KEILAR: Dave, just to be clear, this is - this would be considered - this is not criminal, right? This is civil. But this would be under criminal law if it were considered a sex crime. I mean, that's how serious of a belief this jury has in what happened, even though there are differing views in terms of the severity of what they could have chosen.

ARONBERG: Agreed. I've been getting a lot of questions from people of whether he has to register as a sex offender. The answer is no, because it is not a crime. It's a civil matter. And the reason why this was not a crime is because the statute of limitations passed many years ago for this to be a crime. Now, the state of New York passed a special law that says we're going to extend the statute of limitations civilly for matters like this for a special one-year period. And that's when E. Jean Carroll filed.

She got in that window and that's why this is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. But also she benefited from the fact that she didn't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. She just had to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence is a more likely than not that Trump did it, but it still had to be before a unanimous jury. So this is still a very important verdict.

KEILAR: And Jean Casarez to you, I know you have some information because there were these varying degrees of what the jury could have decided about Trump's conduct: rape, sexual abuse or forcible touching, obviously, different severities here and they went with that middle one, sexual abuse.

[15:15:00]

That is significant that they did not go with rape, but also significant that they did not go with forcible touching here as they decided he was liable.

CASAREZ: I think it's very interesting because obviously this is a victory for the plaintiffs, no question about it. But E. Jean Carroll testified in great detail of how he raped her. And she immediately called two friends and told those friends, he did this to me. This is rape, the friends told her.

So there is with a lot of testimony in that. This jury did not believe more likely than not that that rape happened. Now, the prior bad act witnesses, the two women that testified, they testified to sexual abuse. That's what they testified to.

And the strength of those prior bad act witnesses now, I think really is front and center, because that's the point to show a pattern of conduct. And so those two prior bad act witnesses is what the jury went with in relation to the charge that E. Jean Carroll and what her testimony was that it was sexual abuse. So it's interesting, because there is a small "win" here for Donald Trump that the jury did not believe that there was actual rape. More likely than not, they didn't believe that occurred.

SCIUTTO: Jennifer Rodgers, I wonder how often do you see cases like this allegations of sexual abuse tried in civil - in a civil court as opposed to criminally.

RODGERS: Very rarely, very rarely. I mean, most people, if they're going to pursue this would go to the police. And then if you were accusing someone of means, perhaps after a criminal case, maybe would bring a civil case, but this is highly unusual. And as Dave was saying earlier has to do with the long passage of time criminal charges are not available to her.

And criminal charges involve a whole another entity, right? The prosecutors, you have to first convince the prosecutors to pursue it and it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt, so the standards are much more challenging.

So this is certainly the unusual way to go about trying to vindicate sexual assault victim. But it worked for E. Jean Carroll. She said all along that what she really wanted was her day in court and she got it and not only that, she won.

SANCHEZ: And potentially at any moment, she will leave that courthouse and we may hear her speaking directly to cameras.

Jennifer, staying with you, I wanted to ask about something that Jean Casarez brought up and that is the testimony of these two accusers that had previously accused Trump of sexual assault and sexual harassment, Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff. They are among, by CNN's count, some 15 different accusers that have historically come forward saying that Donald Trump sexually harassed them.

Can you talk about some of the context about these women coming forward and accusing Donald Trump of this over decades now? What does this victory in court for E. Jean Carroll mean for them? RODGERS: Well, it sort of feels like the Me Too movement with Harvey

Weinstein where the first accusers never believed. And then as more and more people come forward, there starts to be this snowball effect. People saying, wow, well, if all these people are coming forward, there must really be something to this.

And so I think it really did help her to have the testimony of these two women and there's a special provision in the federal rules of evidence that allows this kind of testimony in these kinds of cases. So there's no question that it was appropriately allowed in and it really, really is crucial.

I think the other crucial part, frankly, was the testimony of the two friends whom she told immediately about this, because that completely cut the legs out under - out of the argument that she had just made it up recently, because she didn't like his politics. And so I thought they were very compelling witnesses, and that helped tip the scales as well.

SCIUTTO: And to the earlier question, we should note again, that she filed her claim under New York's Adult Survivors Act as it's described, which was passed last year, expressly to give a short window for survivors to bring civil lawsuits against their perpetrators.

KEILAR: That's right. So while you might normally see someone go to the police in the actually rare instances where they do in this particular case, you did have that act funneling some people into the civil process. And that's what we saw here in this case with E. Jean Carroll, right?

SCIUTTO: Yes. It's an important point. Again, Paula Reid, she's been covering this for us and has some colors, some details from inside the courtroom as the verdict is read. What do we know?

REID: So we've learned that the jury has just been dismissed. The judge has stepped down off the bench. It's unclear if E. Jean Carroll or attorneys for former President Trump will speak to the press outside the courthouse. I would not be surprised if they did so.

[15:20:01]

Look, I was in court earlier today listening to the judge instruct this jury. He gave them explicit instructions on the task in front of them. But again, it took about 90 minutes for him to describe this. And yet they only deliberated for about two hours.

Now, I have been covering this, been in and out of court watching this jury. It's a very diverse group of people on this panel. They were all extremely attentive to all of the witnesses as E. Jean Carroll's attorneys tried to establish that her account was not only credible, but that it was supported by a pattern of other accounts, both from other women who allege similar conduct by former President Trump, as well as the former president's own words from the Access Hollywood tape where he describes grabbing people, and then also his own deposition, where he doubled down on that. And it's interesting this jury clearly went through this form very

efficiently, came to a unanimous verdict, which has earned unanimous consensus here, which is really a win for E. Jean Carroll after several weeks of trial here. And it'll be interesting to see if she addresses people and what her message is, because so often when she was on the stand, former President Trump's lawyers would press her on why she didn't scream, why she didn't fight, why she didn't bring this forward sooner. And she talked a lot about the shame that she felt at the time, how much things have changed post Me Too.

And as you just noted, the reason she's able to bring this case, nearly 30 years after the fact, is because New York opened a little window for people to bring these kinds of claims, even if the statute of limitations has passed. But it is very difficult to successfully bring these kinds of claims in court, because of course, here you don't have any eyewitness testimony, even if you did, it would be decades old.

So this is truly a victory for E. Jean Carroll and we'll see if she wants to talk about it when she comes out of court any minute.

KEILAR: Yes. And there was expert testimony, right, that people often do not scream in situations like this. Clearly, the jury took that to heart and they believe E. Jean Carroll. So just to catch people up on this, we now understand as the jury has decided here that in this battery and defamation trial brought by E. Jean Carroll, where she alleged that Trump raped her in a department store in Manhattan in the spring of 1996, the former president has been found liable for sexually abusing Carroll. So liable for battery and liable for defamation, damages totaling almost $5 million, $2 million for battery and nearly $3 million for defamation I believe.

SCIUTTO: And they - one of the questions they addressed here was to determine whether his conduct constituted rape, sexual abuse or forcible touching. And they determined based on the evidence as presented and with the standard of a preponderance of the evidence, standard for a civil trial as opposed to a criminal trial, that it met that standard.

SANCHEZ: And we also can't ignore the backdrop of all of this, right? He is a former president now running for re-election facing a slew of investigation. You mentioned the 34 indictments. Now this and what comes next as we noted before, Fulton County, Georgia, the special counsel investigating him.

So you have to wonder for Donald Trump, was this strategy from his lawyers to not have him present counter testimony, but rather use the counter examination as a defense, I'm wondering, Jennifer Rodgers, if you think Donald Trump may be second guessing his attorney's strategy.

RODGERS: I think they had the right strategy. I mean, there wasn't much in the way that he could have done in terms of other witnesses on his behalf. He would have had to testify himself and Donald Trump would make a horrible witness.

I mean, we saw from the deposition testimony that was released, his demeanor was all wrong for this. He doubled down on things that he should have disavowed. And that's not even getting into the sorts of materials that would be admissible if he were on the stand, materials going to his reputation for truthfulness, he would certainly open the door to all sorts of other evidence about assaults that he had engaged in.

So I think it was wise of them to not put on a case and to go ahead and do what they could with cross-examination and jury addresses. That's not to say that - I think she won and she should have won given the way the case played out, but I don't really think they had any other play because to put him on the stand would have been disastrous.

SANCHEZ: And to Jennifer's point, there was this moment in the deposition where Trump is asked to look at a photograph of him near E. Jean Carroll, someone who he said in his defense was not his type. And he identified the person in the photo, not as E. Jean Carroll. He misidentified her as his former wife Marla Maples.

SCIUTTO: Marla at the time, yeah.

SANCHEZ: And that was in the deposition to Jennifer's point what could have happened on the stand, he don't know.

KEILAR: He also was asked about that Access Hollywood tape --

SANCHEZ: Right.

KEILAR: -- where he talked about stars behaving a certain way and he said they could and then he was asked if he was a star and he said he would say that, but you following --

SCIUTTO: He said as well that that's the way men in power, in fact, behaved for a million years --

KEILAR: That's right.

SCIUTTO: -- as I remember.

[15:25:03]

KEILAR: And following that tape also interesting and following some accusations you've heard defenders of the former president say, yes, but he's never been found guilty in a court of law. And to be clear, this is liability. It's not guilt.

SCIUTTO: Right. It's a different --

KEILAR: This is a civil case, not a criminal case, but it's the same point. This is almost $5 million in damages and these are very serious liabilities that the former president is facing.

SCIUTTO: Dave Aronberg, perhaps, to you, the jury was asked to award compensatory and punitive damages for each claim. Do we know how that adds up in this close to $5 million award here? What percentage was compensatory and punitive? Does that distinction matter in a case like this? ARONBERG: Well, it'll be challenged on appeal, especially with

punitive damages. But we don't know yet. I haven't seen a report that breaks it down. We're just told that it's 5 million when you combine the defamation with the sexual abuse, not sure if there are any punitive damages on that as of yet. Also, punitive damages can be limited in certain states, unlike compensatory damages, so it does matter. We just don't know enough yet.

And getting back to your previous question, I agree with what Jennifer said, that there's not much Trump could have done, but he could have put on an expert witness to try to challenge the expert witnesses put on by the plaintiff, Caroll, because he put on nothing. He goes to the jury, didn't put on a single witness, a single bit of evidence and I think that's what led to his demise.

SCIUTTO: We have - recalling part of this case is defamation --

SANCHEZ: Right.

SCIUTTO: -- part of this case, a very important part, arguably the most important was the jury finding him liable for sexual abuse. But you have the second piece, which is that he defamed E. Jean Carroll by denying this in public. And to that point, we want to play a brief segment from his deposition during the trial in which he dismissed the allegation as a hoax. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now, in your Truth Social statement on October 12th, you use the word hoax. Specifically, you say, "It is a hoax and a lie, just like all the other hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years." Do you see that?

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Recall making that statement. And I take it what you're saying there is Ms. Carroll fabricated her claim that you sexually assaulted her, correct?

TRUMP: Yes, totally --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now --

TRUMP: -- a hundred percent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: One of the questions that I have Jennifer Rodgers to you is, will she see this money, right? I mean, or is this going to be tied up in an appeal? This is almost $5 million in damages that she has been awarded and more of it to your point, Jim, for defamation, because of some things like what we just saw in the deposition tape.

RODGERS: Yes, that's a good point, Brianna. Certainly, she won't see it for a while. He will appeal. And he's also famous for not paying his bills, so it will take some time for her to get a final judgment that's beyond all the appeals and then we'll see if she can collect.

But listen, she has great lawyers, too. So I expect that post appeal, which again, will be sometime, but she will eventually get her hands on it.

SANCHEZ: What do you anticipate an appeal from Donald Trump's lawyers will look like at this point?

RODGERS: Well, you going to scrub the trial record. I mean, the main basis for appeal will be any errors that they claim that the judge made in terms of his rulings on evidentiary matters, on the instructions given to the jury, that sort of thing.

So they'll really have to pour over the record and see where they can find what they say are errors of law by the judge. That's the main basis. You also can appeal saying that no reasonable jury would have found this way, would have issued this verdict. It's against the weight of the evidence, but that's really a long shot, especially in a case where all of the evidence was on one side. It's going to be very hard for them to say that no reasonable jury could have found this way.

So they're going to be looking for those errors. We'll have to see what they come up with. Nothing stands out to me, honestly, from my review of the trial so far, but we'll see what they say.

SCIUTTO: Our Kara Scannell just came out of the courtroom. And, of course, primary player in this case is E. Jean Carroll, she is the one who alleged the abuse and the defamation. She was listening in that courtroom, of course, as the jury read its verdict.

Kara Scannell, can you describe it all? And we may, by the way, be hearing briefly from her if she chooses to speak to reporters as she exits the courtroom. Did you see a reaction from her as the verdict was read?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN REPORTER: Yes, Jim. I mean, so the judge began before he read the verdict saying he wanted everyone to have decorum. He didn't want any jumping up and down or any really verbal reactions. So everyone abided by that.

[15:30:02]