Judge Rejects Trump’s Bid to Toss Verdict in E. Jean Carroll Civil Suit, Says Jury Found Trump Raped Her Per ‘Common’ Definition

A federal judge denied Donald Trump’s bid for a new trial in the civil lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll, explaining in a scathing decision how the jury determined that Trump’s “rape” of Carroll fell under the legal classification of sexual abuse.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan handed down his ruling on Wednesday, rejecting Trump’s demand for a new trial after the previous verdict awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. Kaplan’s decision found that the jury’s initial decision was not a “seriously erroneous result,” nor a miscarriage of justice.

On the subject of Trump’s liability for sexual abuse, Kaplan explained that the way in which the Carroll jury determined that Trump “raped” her according to the common sense of the word, but by the legal definition in New York State, the act falls under “sexual abuse” because Carroll couldn’t definitively prove Trump vaginally penetrated her with his penis.

From pages 3 through 5 of the ruling:

The jury’s unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”

As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere.

The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.

So why does this matter? It matters because Mr. Trump now contends that the jury’s $2 million compensatory damages award for Ms. Carroll’s sexual assault claim was excessive because the jury concluded that he had not “raped” Ms. Carroll. Its verdict, he says, could have been based upon no more than “groping of [Ms. Carroll’s] breasts through clothing or similar conduct, which is a far cry from rape.” And while Mr. Trump is right that a $2 million award for such groping alone could well be regarded as excessive, that undermines rather than supports his argument. His argument is entirely unpersuasive.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com