My last commentary was about the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit from last spring. In that lawsuit, nine New Yorkers heard testimony from Ms. Carroll – after which she was subjected to a strong cross-examination by Trump’s lawyers. Though Trump chose not to testify in person, he had sat for a deposition some of which was played for the jurors. After listening to Ms. Carroll, including the cross-examination, and to Trump, that jury found that Ms. Carroll was telling the truth and that Trump was lying.
The audio and expanded written version of that previous commentary is available here.
I made a big deal about the fact that this was a jury of ordinary people.
(By the way, these jurors were selected after Trump’s lawyers had opportunities to strike some from the trial because they feared they would be biased. Those are called peremptory challenges. Meanwhile, the Judge also excuses people who admit their biases. The only time I ever made it close to being on a jury, I told the Judge that because of my family’s experience with the judicial system a prosecutor would have to prove a case beyond a shadow of a doubt before I would even consider voting to convict anyone! --- she smiled and said, “you’re excused.”) Those jurors were not agents of Joe Biden and the Democrats. They were not left-wing journalists with axes to grind against Trump. They were not part of the so-called “deep state.”
Well, last week, another jury consisting of a different group of nine New Yorkers decided that Trump’s lying about Ms. Carroll had continued since that first trial. As such, this group of jurors made a finding that Trump committed these recent lies with MALICE and was therefore subject to significantly higher punitive damages. Instead of only a couple of million dollars in punitive damages, this jury hit him harder – Over SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS harder.
[Here’s the New York Times’ version: Benjamin Weiser, Jonah Bromwich, Maria Cramer, Kate Christobek, “Jury Orders Trump to Pay Carroll $83.3 Million After Years or Insults,” January 26, 2024 available here. The difference between my figure of over $60 million in punitive damages and the number from the newspaper is that compensatory damages were included in the $83.3 million.]
OKAY --- now let’s cue the MAGA enablers. One of my favorites is Representative Elise Stefanik a member of Congress from Buffalo, NY who is hard at work polishing her MAGA credentials as she auditions to become Trump’s Vice-Presidential candidate. When asked by a reporter if she believes E. Jean Carroll, Stefanik said, “No of course not, the media is so biased!” When the reporter said it was a JURY who determined that Ms. Carroll was telling the truth, Stefanik changed the subject.
[Stefanik has her work cut out for her because she had originally condemned the January 6 insurrectionists in very strong language. Recently, she removed that language from her website but former Representative Liz Cheney published a screen shot of the now deleted message. It’s all available in this piece from The Hill.
Here's some of what Stefanik said about January 6 three years ago:
“This is truly a tragic day for America, …. I fully condemn the dangerous violence and destruction that occurred today at the United States Capitol. Americans have a Constitutional right to protest and freedom of speech, but violence in any form is absolutely unacceptable and anti-American. The perpetrators of this un-American violence and destruction must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
According to The Hill, this January (2024) she had softened her view of the insurrectionists ---- following her “dear leader” Trump ----she told Meet the Press she “had concerns about the treatment of Jan 6 hostages.” HOSTAGES, right? How are these criminals hostages? Many were out on bail all the time till their trials and those who pled not guilty had all the opportunities of any criminal defendant to convince a jury they were innocent.]
Since that second Carroll jury made their decision, the usual suspects have attacked that decision as outrageous. Let’s examine that issue. Trump has claimed his first amendment rights were violated because when he got up on the stand he couldn’t “defend” himself against Carroll’s charges. Some folks might nod their heads and say, “Yeah, let the guy speak!” Well guess what --- he had ample opportunities to speak last spring --- and he was too chickenshit to show up.
It was in THAT FIRST TRIAL that the facts of the sexual assault were litigated. That was when he could have mounted a full-throated defense – he could have told the jury he didn’t know Carroll, had never met her, that she was not “his type.” (The very words he used in public to attack Carroll but not under oath with a lawyer ready to cross-examine him!)
At that cross-examination he could have been asked if Carroll wasn’t his type, how did he mistake her for his second wife, Marla Maples, in a photograph as the jury saw from his deposition? So, he hid from that first jury.
When he decided to take the stand in the second trial to try and argue that he was innocent of the charge for which the jury found him liable last spring --- a sexual assault --- the Judge made it clear that THERE ARE NO “DO-OVERS” IN THE LAW.
Once a jury has spoken, unless an Appeals Court throws out that verdict, the decisions of that jury govern all future legal proceedings. So, when Trump tried to turn the second trial into a do-over, the Judge wouldn’t let him. He had blown his chance because he was too scared to face a cross-examination from Ms. Carroll’s lawyers last spring.
The next line of defense is --- well what do you expect from a NY jury? Well, this NY jury was 8 whites and one black. Seven men and two women. They weren’t all from the city – A few had not completed college. One is a blue-collar worker with the MTA (the NY city subways).
[Snippet from an article about the case: “The jurors, …. weren’t all tony, elite Manhattanites. Several didn’t attend college and had working-class jobs. They came from the Bronx and Putnam Counties and other outer boroughs. Yes, they’re based in New York City, but they resemble the demographic profile of many of Trump’s MAGA followers. Only two were women.” Joan Walsh, “Another Big Win for E. Jean Carroll. Another Loss for Donald Trump,” The Nation, January 27, 2024, available here.]
Most of the prospective jurors had stated that they had not followed the case. Those who were clearly biased beforehand were excused by either the Judge or the lawyers. This jury was completely open-minded before they started to hear the evidence --- and they returned a UNANIMOUS verdict.
AND now I want to take my hat off to former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. She actually had the courage to go on FOX NEWS and state unequivocally, “I absolutely trust the jury, … they made their decision based on the evidence.” What she was saying to Republican primary voters is that they are voting for a lying RAPIST when they choose Trump over her.
Finally, let’s consider the illogic of claiming that a NY jury is going to be biased against Trump. Why? If Trump is such a great wonderful person, shouldn’t the people who know him best, support him and believe him? But of course, the people who know him best, really understand what kind of disgusting person he is. Anyone who followed Trump’s career in NY before he ran for President would know that he’s a crook, a lying self-promoter, and a racist. That’s why the numbers against him in New York City in both Presidential elections were greater than in the rest of the state. (Hillary Clinton and Biden took more than 75% of the vote in NYC. By contrast, in 2020, Biden won only 60% of the vote statewide --- Trump won many upstate counties.)
So, I say it once again, just as I said it in my last commentary. THIS JURY WAS DEFINITELY A FAIR JURY. The fact that they reached this unanimous verdict to levy heavy punitive damages on Trump should make at least some of his worshipping, cult-like supporters wake up. We can only hope.
Michael Meeropol is professor emeritus of Economics at Western New England University. He is the author with Howard and Paul Sherman of the recently published second edition of Principles of Macroeconomics: Activist vs. Austerity Policies.
The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.