660 F.Supp.3d 196
S.D.N.Y.2023Background
- Plaintiff E. Jean Carroll alleges Donald J. Trump raped her in the mid‑1990s and sues in this action for defamation based on statements Trump made in 2019 denying and calling her claim a hoax. A separate related suit (Carroll II) alleges the underlying rape and seeks damages for it and a different defamatory statement.
- Trump moved in limine to exclude: an excerpt of the Access Hollywood tape, testimony from two women (Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff) who say Trump sexually assaulted them, short campaign‑speech video excerpts, and any evidence of emotional harm from the alleged sexual assault.
- Congress amended the Federal Rules to allow propensity evidence in civil cases "based on" alleged sexual assault (Fed. R. Evid. 415), cross‑referencing the definition of "sexual assault" in Rule 413(d).
- The contested prior‑act evidence targets propensity: Leeds alleges nonconsensual groping on an airplane in 1979; Stoynoff alleges unwanted kissing/groping at Mar‑a‑Lago in 2005; the Access Hollywood tape contains statements about kissing and grabbing women without consent; campaign excerpts contain denials and attacks on accusers.
- The court emphasized its limited role on admissibility: under Rule 104(b) it must decide whether a reasonable jury could find by a preponderance that the prior acts fit Rule 413(d)'s definition and were committed by defendant; credibility and ultimate inferences are for the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this defamation case is "based on" an alleged sexual assault for Rule 415 | Carroll: yes; falsity element of defamation requires proof Trump sexually assaulted her, so case is premised on the assault | Trump: no; under a categorical approach, defamation does not require proving a sexual assault as an element | Court: yes — under either approach this defamation claim is "based on" the alleged sexual assault because proving falsity requires proof of the assault; court favors the "premise" approach but decision rests either way |
| Whether the Access Hollywood tape is evidence of other "sexual assaults" under Rule 413(d)/415 | Carroll: tape contains admissions/description of nonconsensual kissing/grabbing and attempts, so it qualifies | Trump: statements are "locker room talk," ambiguous, and not proof of actual conduct | Court: admissible under Rule 415 — a reasonable jury could find the tape evidences nonconsensual contact or attempts, satisfying Rule 413(d) |
| Whether Leeds and Stoynoff testimony constitutes admissible other‑act sexual assault evidence and should survive Rule 403 | Carroll: testimony shows prior sexual assaults/attempts and is highly probative under Rule 415 | Trump: incidents differ in circumstances and time, are remote and prejudicial, and thus should be excluded under Rule 403 | Court: admissible under Rule 415 (satisfy Rule 413(d)); Rule 403 exclusion denied because probative value (given a he‑said/she‑said case) outweighs the claimed prejudice |
| Whether campaign speech excerpts are admissible (Rule 404(b)/403) | Carroll: snippets show a modus operandi of publicly denying and accusing accusers of lying, probative of knowledge/intent/malice | Trump: irrelevant, prejudicial, and not admissible propensity evidence | Court: reserved ruling — declined to admit now and excluded mention in openings; will rule at trial when foundation and limiting purpose can be assessed |
| Whether evidence of emotional harm from the alleged sexual assault is admissible in this defamation case | Carroll: not seeking compensatory damages for the assault here but seeks to offer emotional‑harm evidence to explain delay and context | Trump: seeks to preclude any emotional‑harm evidence tied to the assault in this case | Court: emotional‑harm evidence relevant to reasons for delay and other issues is admissible here; compensatory damages for the assault are limited to Carroll II |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Schaffer, 851 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2017) (discussing Rule 413 legislative purpose and admissibility context)
- Palin v. New York Times Co., 940 F.3d 804 (2d Cir. 2019) (explaining New York defamation elements and falsity requirement)
- Johnson v. Elk Lake Sch. Dist., 283 F.3d 138 (3d Cir. 2002) (on evidentiary exclusion standards cited by the court)
- Highland Capital Mgmt. v. Schneider, 379 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (in limine exclusion standard: evidence excluded only if clearly inadmissible on all grounds)
- United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2011) (discussing attempt and Florida law principles relevant to sexual‑contact offenses)