E. Jean Carroll's Attorney Urges Jury to Penalize Trump for Recent Attacks

Legal Drama Escalates in Carroll-Trump Defamation Case.

by Nouman Rasool
E. Jean Carroll's Attorney Urges Jury to Penalize Trump for Recent Attacks
© Pool/Getty Images

In a high-profile legal showdown, writer E. Jean Carroll's ongoing battle against former President Donald Trump intensified in a Manhattan courtroom this Tuesday. Carroll's legal team pressed for significant financial repercussions against Trump, accusing him of continuous defamation, as reported by Business Insider.

This legal escalation follows a previous ruling where Trump was mandated to compensate Carroll with $5 million for abuse and defamation charges. Despite this, Trump has steadfastly refuted Carroll's accusations of an assault in a New York department store dressing room in the 1990s.

His denial was emphatically repeated on his Truth Social platform, where he questioned the credibility of Carroll's claims and labeled the case a "hoax" and "witch-hunt" – terms he's notoriously used in describing his legal challenges.

Seeking Substantial Deterrent

During the opening statement, Carroll's lawyer, Shawn Crowley, urged the jury to impose financial penalties on Trump for his relentless disparagement of Carroll. Crowley posed a critical question to the jury: "How much money will it take to make him stop?" She highlighted Carroll's victory over "the most powerful man on Earth," which, notably, failed to silence Trump's derogatory remarks.

By the time of Crowley's statement, Trump's Truth Social account had already targeted Carroll in 22 separate posts, as noted by Business Insider. Crowley emphasized the need for a substantial financial deterrent, imploring the jury to "make him pay dearly" to halt his defamatory comments.

Interestingly, Trump continued to post potentially defamatory statements even while present in the courtroom. This behavior drew attention from NYU law professor and MSNBC contributor Andrew Weissmann, who suggested that Trump's social media activity could backfire legally.

Weissmann drew parallels with Rudy Giuliani's costly legal repercussions in the Freeman/Moss defamation case, hinting at a similar fate for Trump. Countering these allegations, MAGA attorney Alina Habba argued that Carroll's resurgence in the public eye and career boost were outcomes of Trump's social media posts.

Habba contended that Carroll, now an "anti-Trump figure," thrived in her renewed prominence, dismissing the need for reputation repair and attributing her continued legal pursuit to adverse online reactions.