by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, April 23 – In case of E. Jean Carroll v Trump, on September 27, 2022, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to reverse the District Court’s holding that the President of the United States is not an employee of the government under the Westfall Act Full decision(s) here.
On September 28, 2022 Trump's lawyer Alina Habba wrote to Judge Kaplan asking that he change the caption of the case - and stay it.
On February 7, 2023 Judge Kaplan held a proceeding with Carroll's and Trump's new lawyer. Inner City Press live tweeted it here.
On April 11, Trump's lawyer Joe Tacopina filed a letter past 10 pm asking Judge Kaplan to delay the Carroll trial for 4 weeks due to publicity, attaching the transcript of Trump's arraignment before Judge Merchan. Letter on Patreon here.
On April l7, Judge Kaplan denied the request, starting: "Mr. Trump seeks a month-long postponement of the April 25, 2023 trial...The suggestion that the recent media coverage of the New York indictment – coverage significantly (though certainly not entirely) invited or provoked by Mr. Trump’s own actions – would preclude selection of a fair and impartial jury on April 25 is pure speculation." Full order on Patreon here.
On April 19, Tacopina wrote to Judge Kaplan to say that as much as Trump would like to attend the trial, the security precautions surrounding his visit to New York to be arrested and arraigned in the Alvin Bragg case led him to request that the jury be instructed not to hold absence against him. Letter on CourtListener here.
On April 20, Judge Kaplan docketed: "the Court notes from Mr. Trump's campaign web site and media reports that he announced earlier this week that he will speak at a campaign event in New Hampshire on April 27, 2023, the third day of the scheduled trial in this case. If the Secret Service can protect him at that event, certainly the Secret Service, the Marshals Service, and the City of New York can see to his security in this very secure federal courthouse."
On Sunday, April 23 Carroll opposed Trump: "the Court found that a jury might reasonably conclude that Trump’s conduct toward Stoynoff constituted an attempt under Rule 413(d), including an attempt to bring any part of his body into contact with her “genitals or anus.” See Rule 413(d)(2). As Your Honor explained, this conclusion about Trump’s motives was based on numerous considerations. First (though this was not alone sufficient), Stoynoff had “described Mr. Trump kissing her without her consent and against her will.” Carroll, 2023 WL 2441795, at *6. Second, Stoynoff had “testified also that Mr. Trump was lying when he denied ‘groping’ her without her consent.” Id. Third, “the circumstances of the alleged encounter” were “suggestive of a plan, formed before Mr. Trump invited Ms. Stoynoff to [an] unoccupied room and closed the door behind her, to take advantage of that privacy and to do so without regard to Ms. Stoynoff’s wishes.” Id. Finally, “the Access Hollywood tape and the testimony of Ms. Leeds are additional evidence . . . in deciding whether to infer that the ultimate goal of Mr. Trump’s alleged actions with Ms. Stoynoff was to bring his hands or other parts of his anatomy into contact with Ms. Stoynoff’s most private parts.” Id. Taken together, these factors could allow a reasonable juror to conclude that Trump’s conduct toward Stoynoff—which, as she had described it, was unquestionably criminal in Florida—fell within Rules 413(d) and 415.1 Accordingly, the Court denied Trump’s motion to exclude Stoynoff’s testimony in Carroll I. See id. Just over two weeks after denying Trump’s motion to exclude Stoynoff’s testimony in Carroll I, the Court granted Carroll’s motion in limine in Carroll II seeking to admit thistestimony. Carroll v. Trump, No. 22 Civ. 10016, 2023 WL 2652636 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2023). In so doing, the Court adopted its reasoning from Carroll I and stated, in no uncertain terms, that “the testimony of Ms[]. Stoynoff . . . regarding [her] experience[] involving the defendant come[s] within Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 415 and will not be excluded under Rule 403.” Id. at *8. * * * In his letter filed yesterday, Trump purports to “request clarification” of the Court’s March 10 opinion. ECF 142 at 1. But there is nothing about that opinion that needs to be clarified." Full filing on Patreon here.
More on Substack here.
Watch this site.
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
