Podcast Summary
Trump Misses Court Deadline to Testify in E. Jean Carroll Case: Despite Trump's public statement to attend the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial, the defense had already rested and waived his right to testify. Trump missed the court deadline to file a motion to testify in person, leaving the consequences uncertain.
Donald Trump missed a court deadline to file a motion to testify in person in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case against him. This came after Trump publicly stated he was returning to the US to confront Carroll in the trial. The judge called Trump's bluff, and the defense had previously rested and waived Trump's right to testify. The consequences of this missed deadline remain to be seen. The Economist offers in-depth analysis on various topics, including this legal development. Sign up for The Economist to stay informed on this and other world events. You'll receive the weekly digital edition, online articles, curated newsletters, and full access to The Economist Podcast Plus. The Economist provides independent journalism for independent thinking. Visit economist.com for your first month free. In the E. Jean Carroll case, Trump's missed deadline follows his public statement that he would attend the trial. However, the defense had previously rested and waived Trump's right to testify. The judge brought up Trump's comments in the courtroom, expressing confusion over the defense's position. The trial is set to go to the jury on Monday, and the consequences of Trump's missed deadline remain to be seen.
False accusations against public figures can be lengthy and complex: Public figures face lengthy legal battles due to false accusations, draining their time, resources, and reputation.
False accusations against high-profile individuals can lead to lengthy legal battles, even when there is evidence suggesting the accusations are false. In this case, Donald Trump, a famous, rich, and political person, faced a hostile judge and a woman making false accusations against him. Despite his intentions to have the case dismissed as a matter of law, the judge granted the accuser the opportunity to testify, and Trump did not appear in court to testify as promised. This incident highlights the challenges and complexities of navigating the legal system, particularly for public figures. Despite the outcome being predictable, the process itself can be a significant drain on time, resources, and reputation.
The Absence of Jean Carroll's Lawyer During the Trial: Despite Haba's absence, Carroll's team plans to use her empty chair as a symbol of Trump's team's underperformance and lack of commitment to justice.
Key takeaway from the trial of E. Jean Carroll versus Donald Trump is the noticeable absence of Jean Carroll's lawyer, Alina Haba, during the proceedings. While her colleagues, Robbie Kaplan, Sean Crowley, and Mike Ferrara, were actively involved in the case, Haba did not contribute a single witness or argument. In contrast, Joe Tacopina, Trump's lead lawyer, handled the major witnesses and is expected to give the closing argument. The plaintiff's team plans to use this fact to their advantage, emphasizing that Trump's team underperformed and that the empty chair once occupied by Haba symbolizes a lack of commitment to justice and the case itself. Additionally, they will remind the jury of broken promises and unfulfilled expectations from Trump's legal team during the trial.
Jury's Frustration with Trump's Absence and Imbalance of Evidence: The absence of Trump and lack of defense witnesses left the jury with only one side of the story, potentially influencing their decision-making process, making a unanimous vote a significant challenge for the plaintiff.
Learning from the E. Jean Carroll trial against Donald Trump is the jury's frustration with Trump's absence and the imbalance of evidence presented. The plaintiff presented all 11 of their witnesses, while the defense had no witnesses of their own and relied solely on cross-examining the plaintiff's witnesses. The defense made a Rule 50 motion, asking the judge for a ruling in their favor as a matter of law, arguing that no reasonable jury would find for the plaintiff based on the presented evidence. The defense's lack of witnesses and Trump's absence from the trial left the jury with only one side of the story, potentially impacting their decision-making process. The plaintiff must secure a unanimous 9-0 vote for a favorable outcome, making the imbalance of evidence a significant challenge.
Jury to Decide if Trump Sexually Assaulted Carroll in 1996: Jury will determine damages for Carroll based on evidence presented, with lower burden of proof than criminal cases, despite defense's lack of evidence and judge's denial of motion.
The jury in the E. Jean Carroll vs. Donald Trump case, which is being tried in federal court, will decide if it is more likely than not that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in 1996. The burden of proof for the jury is lower than in a criminal case, requiring only that the scales of evidence be tipped slightly in favor of the plaintiff. The defense presented no evidence in the case, and the judge denied a motion for a judgment that would have taken the case away from the jury. The jury, composed of six men and three women, will soon be charged with the law and begin deliberations to determine if Carroll is entitled to damages for sexual assault and defamation. The speakers' opinion is that no reasonable jury could side with Trump based on the evidence presented.
Donald Trump's Defamatory Statements Against E. Jean Carroll: Trump's defamatory statements against E. Jean Carroll caused over $3M in professional reputation damages. The trial will determine additional damages for pain and suffering, with both sides seeking significant awards.
During his presidency, Donald Trump made defamatory statements about E. Jean Carroll on social media, labeling her a fraud, a liar, and making up allegations about her doing it for money. These statements caused significant professional reputation damages, with expert witnesses estimating over $3,000,000. The trial will determine additional damages for pain and suffering, and both sides will present their arguments for the award amount. The plaintiffs are seeking damages north of $3,000,000, and punitive damages as well. The defense will argue for 0 damages, a challenging position to present to a New York Manhattan jury. The Midas Touch network will provide coverage of the trial, with hot takes and analysis from legal experts.
Engage with Michael Popuk's content: Like, comment, follow, and purchase merchandise to support and access Michael Popuk's content on multiple platforms
Michael Popuk, a legal commentator, encourages his audience to engage with his content by liking, commenting, and following him on social media if they enjoy his "hot takes" and want uninterrupted access to his content. He provides multiple platforms for consumption, including video and audio formats. Additionally, he promotes his merchandise, specifically an indictment season t-shirt and v-neck, available for purchase at store.midastouch.com. The tone of his delivery is lively and engaging, with a touch of humor. Overall, Michael Popuk invites his audience to actively participate in his content and community.
