POLITICS
How much money could Trump have to pay E. Jean Carroll in the defamation lawsuit?
Donald Trump could be forced to pay millions to E. Jean Carroll if a New York judge determines he is liable for defaming the writer.
In late 2023, a New York court found former President Donald Trump liable to pay damages to writer E. Jean Carroll based on sexual abuse allegations she made against him. Trump was mandated by the court to pay $2 million for the abuse and an additional $3 million for defaming the New York-based writer.
After the decision was made, Donald Trump continued his tirade, leading to another defamation case that could force him to make a larger payout to Carroll. The writer’s lawyers are now claiming a payout of $10 million for this continued defamation.
A look back at the case that started it all
A New York judge has ruled that a verdict handed down by a jury in a civil trial earlier this year, finding that he sexually abused E Jean Carroll and defamed her, will carry over to a separate 2019 defamation lawsuit she filed against him. The case proceedings, scheduled to go to trial on January 15, 2024, will be streamlined by Judge Lewis Kaplan’s ruling.
In January, the upcoming trial will be restricted to assigning compensation to Carroll, who is requesting $10 million. During the previous civil trial earlier this year, Trump was instructed by the jury to pay her $5 million in damages. Additionally, Judge Kaplan confirmed on Wednesday that the damages will not be limited, implying that the previous compensation will not be considered while deciding the damages in January.
Who is E. Jean Carroll?
Elizabeth Jean Carroll was the writer of the longest-running advice column in Elle magazine from 1993 to 2019. In 2022, she became one of the most high-profile women to accuse the former president of rape. Under a new law in New York, Carroll was able to bring a case against Trump in civil court even though the statute of limitation to bring forward a criminal case had passed.
In Judge Kaplan’s 25-page ruling, he wrote that the jury in that case “considered and decided issues that are common to both cases,” and its verdict and the undisputed facts “establish that Mr Trump’s 2019 statements were made with actual malice.”