Donald Trump, the former president, is asking for another chance in court over two defamation cases brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of sexual assault and defamation. Trump’s legal team recently filed a motion with a federal appeals court, requesting a fresh trial and claiming that the original decisions were flawed.
In December 2024, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit already turned down Trump’s request for a new trial. The judges found no errors in the previous rulings that would have affected Trump’s rights. Undeterred, Trump is now asking the entire appeals court to reconsider the matter.
The case goes back to May 2023, when a jury in Manhattan determined that Trump sexually abused Carroll in the late 1990s in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman, a high-end department store in New York City. The jury also found that Trump defamed Carroll when he publicly denied her claims and said he didn’t know her. Although this was a civil trial and didn’t involve criminal charges, the jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll $5 million in damages.
Then, in January 2024, another jury in Manhattan ruled in Carroll’s favor over similar accusations and awarded her a whopping $83.3 million. Trump is now fighting both rulings, insisting he deserves a new trial in each case.
Trump’s latest motion strongly denies Carroll’s allegations, accusing her of fabricating the entire story. His legal team claims there is no physical evidence, no eyewitnesses, no police reports, and no records to support her accusations. They also argue that Carroll waited over two decades to make her claims, suggesting she did so to harm Trump politically and gain financial benefit. The defense even points out that Carroll’s story resembles a plot from one of her favorite TV shows.
Trump’s lawyers also take issue with the evidence used during the trial, arguing it unfairly influenced the jury. For instance, two women, Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, testified that Trump had sexually assaulted them years ago. Leeds described an incident in the 1970s when Trump allegedly groped her on a plane, while Stoynoff recounted a 2005 encounter at Mar-a-Lago during an interview with Trump and his wife, Melania.
Additionally, the infamous Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump was heard bragging about groping women, was played during the trial. Trump’s lawyers argue that this evidence unfairly portrayed him as someone likely to commit the alleged acts.
The appeals court previously ruled that this testimony and the tape were relevant because they showed a pattern of behavior similar to what Carroll described. The court explained that this evidence was not just about Trump’s character but supported the claim that he acted inappropriately with Carroll and other women.
Trump’s legal team, however, disagrees. They argue the court misapplied federal rules, particularly concerning how and when evidence like this can be used. For example, they claim Leeds’ testimony didn’t meet the definition of sexual assault under federal law since the alleged incident happened before such laws existed. They also say Stoynoff’s claims didn’t apply to the specific jurisdiction of the case. Finally, they argue that the Access Hollywood tape was wrongly used to suggest a pattern of behavior.
The defense warns that these rulings could set a dangerous precedent, allowing inflammatory evidence in future cases and leading to unfair verdicts based on emotion rather than facts. They’ve asked the appeals court to correct what they see as serious legal mistakes to ensure fair trials moving forward.
This legal battle isn’t over yet, and Trump’s request for new trials will now be considered by the appeals court. Meanwhile, the cases remain a significant chapter in the ongoing saga between Trump and E. Jean Carroll.
