A federal appeals court on Friday denied President Donald Trump‘s bid to rehear his appeal of a jury’s verdict that he was liable for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll and defaming her.
A divided full bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit denied Trump’s appeal, upholding the $5 million judgment against him. The appeal to the full court came months after a three-judge panel on the appeals court denied Trump’s bid, meaning the final avenue through which the president may appeal the decision is the Supreme Court.
Recommended Stories
- Judge skeptical of Trump order federalizing California National Guard
- DOJ sues New York over 'sanctuary' law blocking ICE arrests at courthouses
- Abrego Garcia lawyers seek Pam Bondi phone data in sanctions challenge
A New York jury found in May 2023 that Trump was liable for sexually assaulting Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s and defaming her in 2022 by denying the accusation, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury did not find him liable for rape, and Trump has maintained that the encounter never occurred.
The petition to the full appeals court alleged that the jury trial was tainted by improper evidence and that it improperly influenced the jury. Trump’s lawyers further alleged that the judgment could set a dangerous precedent if allowed to stand.
A concurring opinion filed by Judge Myrna Perez, and joined by Judges Eunice Lee, Beth Robinson, and Sarah Merriam, said there was “no manifest error by the district court” and that Trump’s lawyers failed to show “the standard for en banc review” was met.
“Simply relitigating a case is not an appropriate use of the en banc procedure. In those rare instances in which a case warrants our collective consideration, it is almost always because it involves a question of exceptional importance or a conflict between the panel’s opinion and appellate precedent,” Perez said.
“The dissenting opinion ignores this rule of restraint. It points to no exceptionally important issues, no
cases that actually conflict with the panel’s decision, and no persuasive justification for review of this case by the full Court,” Perez added.
Judge Steven Menashi filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Judge Michael Park, expressing concern over the admission of character evidence in the trial against Trump.
“The result was a jury verdict based on impermissible character evidence and few reliable facts. No one can have any confidence that the jury would have returned the same verdict if the normal rules of evidence had been applied,” said Menashi, a Trump appointee.
APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS VERDICT FINDING TRUMP LIABLE FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT
“Because I would apply the same rules in every case regardless of the identity of the defendant, I dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc,” Menashi added.
Trump also appealed a separate defamation ruling against him won by Carroll over the sexual assault claims, in which she won an additional $83.3 million in damages for a denial of the claim Trump made in 2019.