A high-stakes legal battle between former President Donald Trump and writer E. Jean Carroll takes another dramatic turn.

According to the New York Post, a federal appeals court in Manhattan has rejected Trump's attempt to overturn the $5 million jury verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing Carroll and later defaming her.

The three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Trump's arguments, claiming that Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan had made errors during the trial.

The panel specifically defended Kaplan's decision to allow certain evidence, including the controversial 2005 "Access Hollywood" tape, to be presented to the jury.

Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump's Claims of Trial Errors

The appeals court ruling definitively stated that Judge Kaplan had not abused his discretion in any of the challenged evidentiary rulings. This decision upholds the May 2023 civil verdict that found Trump liable for sexually assaulting Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman fitting room in 1996.

The same verdict also determined that Trump had defamed Carroll through his October 2022 Truth Social post, where he dismissed her allegations as a hoax.

Trump's legal team had pushed for a new trial, citing alleged judicial errors. However, the appeals panel maintained that the jury had made its assessment based on properly developed evidence and testimony.

The former president's political adviser, Steven Cheung, responded to the ruling with defiance. He stated:

The American People have re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate, and they demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded Carroll Hoax, which will continue to be appealed.

Ongoing Legal Battles Between Trump and Carroll Continue

This latest ruling comes as Trump faces another substantial legal challenge from Carroll. He is currently appealing an additional $83.3 million jury verdict from January 2024, which found him liable for damaging Carroll's reputation.

The January verdict stemmed from Trump's response to Carroll's initial public disclosure of her allegations in June 2019. At that time, Trump had claimed he had never met Carroll, stated she wasn't his type, and accused her of fabricating the story to promote her memoir.

Carroll's legal representation, led by Roberta Kaplan, expressed satisfaction with the appeals court's decision. Kaplan remarked: "We thank the Second Circuit for its careful consideration of the parties' arguments."

Moving Forward Amid Multiple Legal Challenges

The upheld verdict represents just one component of Trump's ongoing legal battles. The former president continues to contest multiple legal challenges while maintaining his political activities.

The appeals court's decision reinforces the original jury's findings regarding both the sexual abuse allegations and subsequent defamation claims. This ruling sets a significant precedent for the handling of similar cases involving public figures and defamation claims.

The legal team representing Carroll has consistently maintained their client's credibility throughout the proceedings. Their success in the initial trial and appeals process demonstrates the strength of their evidence and legal strategy.

Why This Story Matters

This case serves as a reminder that justice can prevail, even against powerful figures. It underscores the importance of accountability in combating sexual misconduct and defamation. Moreover, it highlights the ongoing challenges faced by survivors seeking justice in the public eye.

Conclusion

Donald Trump, age 78, faces continued legal challenges as both the original $5 million verdict stands and the appeal of the $83.3 million defamation verdict proceeds.

The former president's attempts to overturn the May 2023 verdict were unsuccessful, with the appeals court firmly supporting Judge Kaplan's trial decisions and the jury's findings regarding the 1996 Bergdorf Goodman incident and subsequent defamatory statements.

As legal proceedings continue, the case highlights the intersection of personal accountability and public office, with significant implications for both parties involved.