Donald Trump shows up at a rally. E. Jean Carroll goes to federal court in Manhattan for the first day of trial against him. (Photos L-R: Emily Elconin/Getty Images; AP Photo/Brittainy Newman)
A judge in New York has denied Donald Trump’s request for a new trial and judgment after he lost the case brought by E. Jean Carroll and was ordered to pay the veteran writer he sexually abused and defamed $88.3 million earlier this year, saying the former president’s “hatred and disdain was on full display.”
Senior U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan issued the scathing ruling Thursday, calling the former president’s claims “without merit” as they pertain to the alleged “erroneous” jury instruction that “common-law malice” was “independently sufficient to taint the jury verdict and warrant a new trial.
Under long-standing First Amendment rules around “actual malice,” Kaplan explained that it is a requirement in some defamation cases to prove actual malice and that defamatory statements made are made with or without the knowledge that they were false. This typically goes toward the defendant’s state of mind.
In the state of New York, there is a slightly different version of ” common law malice interpreted but Kaplan said nonetheless, Trump’s take was off-kilter. In sum, he explained that the mere existence of common law malice “does not defeat the conditional privilege unless it is the sole motive for the defamation.
And Trump’s motivations were on display before the jury, the judge said. The punitive damages he was forced to pay, as such, aligned with that.
The Supreme Court has already determined that punitive damages can be awarded based on the “degree of reprehensibility” of a defendant’s actions, the “disparity” between the harm and potential harm and the size of the award, and finally, the difference between the remedy in one case and another comparable one.
“The Court agrees with plaintiff that each of these three guideposts more than justifies the punitive damages awarded by the jury. However, it is worth emphasizing the particular reprehensibility and severity that the jury could have found accurately characterized Mr. Trump’s conduct, which the Supreme Court has said is ‘[p]erhaps the most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award,'” Kaplan wrote.
He went on to slam Trump, saying he used the “loudest ‘bully pulpit’ in America and possibly the world” to issue repeated defamatory statements against Carroll, including saying she was a “politically and financially motivated liar” who was “too unattractive for him to have sexually assaulted and threatening that she would ‘pay dearly’ for speaking out.
The jury could have found that he wielded his power as arguably “the most powerful and famous man in the world to broadcast his lies to millions of dedicated followers in an effort to destroy Ms. Carroll’s credibility” or to “punish” her for speaking out or to deter other women from doing the same.
“It could have found also that he continued his attacks over the nearly five It took this case many years to reach a decision, according to Kaplan's writing. [Emphasis original]
Even while the trial was ongoing, he kept attacking the writer and was heard complaining to his lawyer about the proceedings. The plaintiff's lawyer had to request twice for the Court to tell him to stop.
The judge, appearing frustrated, stated that most notably, minutes after Carroll's lawyer finished her closing arguments, Trump stood up and walked out of the courtroom without any apparent reason, except to show his disapproval.
Kaplan wrote that the evidence for punitive damages is acceptable based on this exceptional record.