My understanding was that she accused him of rape, as well, which the jury did not find him liable for. Axios' reporting appears to bear that out (axios.com/2023/05/09/tr…): "The jury found that Trump did sexually abuse Carroll but did not determine that he raped her."
My understanding was that she accused him of rape, as well, which the jury did not find him liable for. Axios' reporting appears to bear that out (https://www.axios.com/2023/05/09/trump-verdict-e-jean-carroll-lawsuit-damages): "The jury found that Trump did sexually abuse Carroll but did not determine that he raped her."
That is a very poorly written bullet point in a larger summary. There is no such thing as “rape” in a civil tort. He was being sued for sexual battery/abuse and defamation, and the jury found for the plaintiff on both counts. Saying a civil jury didn’t find that he raped her is roughly as disingenuous as saying OJ Simpson’s civil jury didn’t find that he murdered Nicole and Ron. This jury finding that Trump sexually battered her is the same equivalent as that one finding that OJ wrongfully caused their deaths.
I'm not trying to be argumentative; I simply want to be accurate. On Twitter, Adam Klasfeld (of LawandCrime.com) has a photo of the jury's verdict form. It reads, in part: "Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 1. Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll?" and the line beside "No" is checked.
Addendum: ok, now I get what happened. The judge gave the jury the option to find him liable for any of three levels of sexual assault -- rape, sexual battery, or forcible touching from most to least severe. So that they decided he wasn’t liable for rape wasn’t a declaration of innocence, they just went for the middle severity of the three. That’s why the “forcible touching” mark is blank, they were going down the list in severity until they got to “yes,” and rape required them to believe it was more likely than not he forcibly penetrated her with (cringe... ahem) le champignon orange, and they just weren’t willing to go that far.
NPR is reporting the same thing, actually. I stand corrected. He was found liable for sexual battery but not rape. I will back down to a statement that I’m not sure how, based on her testimony, they concluded one and not the other, but that is indeed what they found, and that’s kinda bad reporting on the rest of the media’s part for glossing that over.
My understanding was that she accused him of rape, as well, which the jury did not find him liable for. Axios' reporting appears to bear that out (https://www.axios.com/2023/05/09/trump-verdict-e-jean-carroll-lawsuit-damages): "The jury found that Trump did sexually abuse Carroll but did not determine that he raped her."
That is a very poorly written bullet point in a larger summary. There is no such thing as “rape” in a civil tort. He was being sued for sexual battery/abuse and defamation, and the jury found for the plaintiff on both counts. Saying a civil jury didn’t find that he raped her is roughly as disingenuous as saying OJ Simpson’s civil jury didn’t find that he murdered Nicole and Ron. This jury finding that Trump sexually battered her is the same equivalent as that one finding that OJ wrongfully caused their deaths.
I'm not trying to be argumentative; I simply want to be accurate. On Twitter, Adam Klasfeld (of LawandCrime.com) has a photo of the jury's verdict form. It reads, in part: "Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 1. Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll?" and the line beside "No" is checked.
I know some here don't like Twitter as a source, but it's the only one I could find, and Mr. Klasfeld is a reputable journalist. The document can be viewed at: https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1656037991066812440/photo/1
Addendum: ok, now I get what happened. The judge gave the jury the option to find him liable for any of three levels of sexual assault -- rape, sexual battery, or forcible touching from most to least severe. So that they decided he wasn’t liable for rape wasn’t a declaration of innocence, they just went for the middle severity of the three. That’s why the “forcible touching” mark is blank, they were going down the list in severity until they got to “yes,” and rape required them to believe it was more likely than not he forcibly penetrated her with (cringe... ahem) le champignon orange, and they just weren’t willing to go that far.
Yeah, that's what I read. Glad you got to the bottom of it; I wasn't comfortable getting into it in that detail.
The explanation I received was that as she didn’t actually view his penile insertion the rape charge was denied and sexual abuse accepted.
NPR is reporting the same thing, actually. I stand corrected. He was found liable for sexual battery but not rape. I will back down to a statement that I’m not sure how, based on her testimony, they concluded one and not the other, but that is indeed what they found, and that’s kinda bad reporting on the rest of the media’s part for glossing that over.