Trump Bid to
Delay Carroll Case Was
Denied Now Bid for
Clarification on
Stoynoff Opposed
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
April 23 – In
case of E.
Jean Carroll v
Trump, on
September 27,
2022, a
three-judge
panel of the
Second Circuit
Court of
Appeals ruled
to reverse the
District
Court’s
holding that
the President
of the United
States is not
an employee of
the government
under the
Westfall
Act Full
decision(s) here.
On September 28,
2022 Trump's lawyer Alina
Habba wrote to Judge Kaplan
asking that he change the
caption of the case - and stay
it.
On February 7,
2023 Judge Kaplan held a
proceeding with Carroll's and
Trump's new lawyer. Inner City
Press live tweeted it here.
On April 11,
Trump's lawyer Joe Tacopina
filed a letter past 10 pm
asking Judge Kaplan to delay
the Carroll trial for 4 weeks
due to publicity, attaching
the transcript of Trump's
arraignment before Judge
Merchan. Letter on Patreon here.
On April l7,
Judge Kaplan denied the
request, starting: "Mr. Trump
seeks a month-long
postponement of the April 25,
2023 trial...The suggestion
that the recent media coverage
of the New York indictment –
coverage significantly (though
certainly not entirely)
invited or provoked by Mr.
Trump’s own actions – would
preclude selection of a fair
and impartial jury on April 25
is pure speculation." Full
order on Patreon here.
On April 19,
Tacopina wrote to Judge Kaplan
to say that as much as Trump
would like to attend the
trial, the security
precautions surrounding his
visit to New York to be
arrested and arraigned in the
Alvin Bragg case led him to
request that the jury be
instructed not to hold absence
against him. Letter on
CourtListener here.
On April 20,
Judge Kaplan docketed: "the
Court notes from Mr. Trump's
campaign web site and media
reports that he announced
earlier this week that he will
speak at a campaign event in
New Hampshire on April 27,
2023, the third day of the
scheduled trial in this case.
If the Secret Service can
protect him at that event,
certainly the Secret Service,
the Marshals Service, and the
City of New York can see to
his security in this very
secure federal courthouse."
On Sunday,
April 23 Carroll opposed
Trump: "the Court found that a
jury might reasonably conclude
that Trump’s conduct toward
Stoynoff constituted an
attempt under Rule 413(d),
including an attempt to bring
any part of his body into
contact with her “genitals or
anus.” See Rule 413(d)(2). As
Your Honor explained, this
conclusion about Trump’s
motives was based on numerous
considerations. First (though
this was not alone
sufficient), Stoynoff had
“described Mr. Trump kissing
her without her consent and
against her will.” Carroll,
2023 WL 2441795, at *6.
Second, Stoynoff had
“testified also that Mr. Trump
was lying when he denied
‘groping’ her without her
consent.” Id. Third, “the
circumstances of the alleged
encounter” were “suggestive of
a plan, formed before Mr.
Trump invited Ms. Stoynoff to
[an] unoccupied room and
closed the door behind her, to
take advantage of that privacy
and to do so without regard to
Ms. Stoynoff’s wishes.” Id.
Finally, “the Access Hollywood
tape and the testimony of Ms.
Leeds are additional evidence
. . . in deciding whether to
infer that the ultimate goal
of Mr. Trump’s alleged actions
with Ms. Stoynoff was to bring
his hands or other parts of
his anatomy into contact with
Ms. Stoynoff’s most private
parts.” Id. Taken together,
these factors could allow a
reasonable juror to conclude
that Trump’s conduct toward
Stoynoff—which, as she had
described it, was
unquestionably criminal in
Florida—fell within Rules
413(d) and 415.1
Accordingly, the Court denied
Trump’s motion to exclude
Stoynoff’s testimony in
Carroll I. See id. Just over
two weeks after denying
Trump’s motion to exclude
Stoynoff’s testimony in
Carroll I, the Court granted
Carroll’s motion in limine in
Carroll II seeking to admit
thistestimony. Carroll v.
Trump, No. 22 Civ. 10016, 2023
WL 2652636 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27,
2023). In so doing, the Court
adopted its reasoning from
Carroll I and stated, in no
uncertain terms, that “the
testimony of Ms[]. Stoynoff .
. . regarding [her]
experience[] involving the
defendant come[s] within
Federal Rules of Evidence 413
and 415 and will not be
excluded under Rule 403.” Id.
at *8. * * * In his letter
filed yesterday, Trump
purports to “request
clarification” of the Court’s
March 10 opinion. ECF 142 at
1. But there is nothing about
that opinion that needs to be
clarified." Full filing on
Patreon here.
More on Substack
here.
Watch this site.
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2023 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|