Defamation cases aren’t just about what people said. They’re also about what people did. And sometimes a single legal case isn’t just about that case; it is about all the cases that will come after it.
Since April 25, an anonymous jury in a Manhattan courtroom has heard journalist E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit against former President Donald Trump alleging defamation and battery. On Tuesday, the jury ruled Trump was liable for defamation and sexual abuse and awarded Carroll $5 million.
Carroll was able to allege battery (which in this case means sexual assault) thanks to an unusual law. She accused Trump of raping her in the 1990s, outside New York’s statute of limitations. But last year, the state passed a law creating a one-year window for victims of sexual offenses to file civil suits even if the statute of limitations had expired.
Not all alleged victims whose charges fall outside the statute of limitations will be able to count on such temporary measures. But they could find a path to justice in the other half of Carroll’s allegations: defamation. Her defamation case hinges on Trump’s denial of her allegations. The former president, in a typically vile denial, said that Carroll’s case was “a Hoax and a lie,” and a “complete con job.” He also repeated a claim he made previously: that he didn’t rape Carroll because she’s not his “type.” This is, of course, a curious defense — particularly when Trump confused Carroll with his second wife, Marla Maples, who, as Trump confirmed under oath, was his type because he married her.
Not all alleged victims whose charges fall outside the statute of limitations will be able to count on such temporary measures.
Truth is a complete defense to a claim of defamation. Therefore, while this defamation case played out in a civil courtroom, not a criminal one, part of this case was about whether the jury believed Carroll when she said Trump raped her, or believed Trump when he said he did not. In this…
Read the full article here