LOS ANGELES.–Making a mockery of the U.S. justice system, a Manhattan federal jury awarded 80-year-old retired Elle columnist.com E. Jean Carroll $83 million, all because 77-year-old President Donald Trump denied he ever raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room. Trump was found liable for Carroll’s sexual abuse charges May 9, 2023 and awarded $5 million. When Trump took to his Truth Social platform to deny the verdict and damages, saying Carroll fabricated the story to sell books, her attorney Roberta Kaplan decided to sue Trump again for deliberate infliction of emotional harm. Trump tried to give his side on the story but was quickly shot down by Judge Lewis Kaplan, instructing the jury to take Trump’s courtroom behavior into consideration. When the jury awarded Carroll $83 million Jan. 26, all the media could say was Trump deserved it.
Looking at the $83 million award, Kaplan and the jury made a mockery of the U.S. justice system, whose Constitutional mandate is about equity and fairness, not arbitrary and capricious power on the part of jurors. Kaplan should have interceded telling the jury they must follow the rule of law, not express their hatred of Trump. Whatever Trump said about Carroll on his Truth Social platform, a federal judge and jury must award a judgment based on the rule of law not political bias or lingering hatred. “When lawyers and litigants run roughshod over a judge and disrespect the admonitions, juries don’t like that,” said John Jones, a former federal judge in Pennsylvania. Whatever Judge Kaplan thinks of Trump, he must instruct a jury to avoid the kind of animus and bias in calculating awards. Hitting Trump with $83 million shows undeniable jury misconduct.
Judges and juries don’t have unlimited discretion to award any possible award simply because they don’t like the defendant or his lawyers. Much talk was about the behavior of Trump’s 39-year-old Atty. Alina Habba, known for her fierce defense of the former president. Whether jurors believe E. Jean Carroll or not, the jury was supposed to ascertain damages based on injury to Carroll’s reputation. ‘these are regular people who play by the rules,” said Chris Mattei, who won a $1.5 billion verdict against Alex Jones. Does Mattei really think regular people decide to punish defendants simply because they have money? What does Trump’s wealth have to do with the rule of law. Shouldn’t judges and juries base awards on the offense charged, not whether someone has the ability to pay? Kaplan’s jury went beyond the pale awarding Carroll $83 million.
When it comes to administering justice, judges and juries are obligated to evaluate the crime, in this case Trump shooting off his mouth, without any consequences other that irritating Carroll or the judge or juries. How does Trump expressing his disbelief over what he sees as an unfair verdict, accusing him of rape in a public place? When it comes to whose reputation has been impugned, doesn’t Trump has the most to lose. How does a retiree like Carrol have any damage from her reputation by Trump disputing her allegations. Whatever a jury found May 9, 2023 that Trump was responsible for inflicting bodily harm on Carroll, how does an event that happened at an unknown date in the mid-90s translate into a dollar award? Awarding her $5 million was considered outrageous, considering Carroll could not at trial recall the date Trump allegedly sexually abused her.
Judges and juries can’t arbitrarily make damage awards based on assaying a defendant’s bank account or because they don’t like his politics. Trump’s cases in New York, whether Carroll’s, Manhattan DA or New York State Atty. Gen. Letitia James. All three don’t like Trump politically, seeking to inflict as much damage as possible. Justice is not served by jury awards not commensurate with the crimes committed. When it comes to Carroll, how do Trump’s comments on Truth Social warrant an award of $83 million? Only Trump faces the political backlash from liberals even when they have nothing to do with his alleged crimes. Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, says Trump’s statements damaged Carroll’s reputation as a retired columnist. How could any federal judge approve a jury award so beyond the pale that it disgraces the court’s reputation?
Instead of meting out justice, the federal jury in Carroll’s case simply punished Trump in the most arbitrary way possible. “In all likelihood, he has the money to pay,” said Mattei. “That’s also really significant because the public needs to see that verdicts are enforceable in order to have confidence in the legal system,” making the most illogical arguments for how juries determine awards. When the punishment matches the crime, what does political or financial status have to do with determining a fair jury award? When it comes to Trump, Democrats and the press don’t care if he’s been framed by the Obama administration or currently faces fake charges in the Biden administration. Any legitimate appeals court should toss out the jury’s $83 million award as excessive. If the past jury determined $5 million, that would be more in line to Trump’s alleged infractions.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
