In a tough day for Donald Trump, the New York Appeals Court scrutinized his attempts to overturn a jury verdict that found him liable for s3xual abuse against E. Jean Carroll. The verdict stems from an incident in 1983 when Carroll, a well-known writer and editor, accused Trump of s3xually assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store, located just across the street from Trump Tower. This case has been a significant legal battle for Trump, culminating in a jury’s decision to award Carroll $5.5 million in damages for defamation and punitive measures.

Carroll’s allegations were supported by testimony from two close friends she confided in shortly after the incident, known in legal terms as “outcry witnesses.” These witnesses are often given special status because they provide immediate accounts of the events, lending credibility to the victim’s claims. Among these witnesses was Carol Martin, a respected TV newscaster, and another well-known author, both of whom corroborated Carroll’s account.

During the trial, evidence was presented that included instances of Trump’s alleged misconduct with other women, such as groping them on planes and during interviews. The infamous Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump boasted about his ability to grab women without consent due to his celebrity status, was also played for the jury. This collection of evidence painted a troubling picture of Trump’s behavior, leading to the jury’s unanimous verdict against him.

In his appeal, Trump, represented by attorney John Saur, argued that the jury’s decision was flawed. Saur’s performance during the appeal was marked by a frantic delivery, prompting Judge Denny Chin to intervene and ask him to slow down. One of Saur’s more absurd arguments suggested that since there is no federal law explicitly prohibiting groping someone on an airplane, the evidence should be dismissed. This line of reasoning was met with skepticism, as basic principles of consent have long been established in various forms of law.

The appeal also contested the inclusion of testimonies from other women who had similar experiences with Trump, arguing that such evidence should not have influenced the jury’s decision. However, in civil cases, the rules of evidence allow for the introduction of prior bad acts to establish a pattern of behavior, which is not permissible in criminal cases. This distinction is crucial and demonstrates the different standards applicable in civil versus criminal courts.

As the appeal proceedings unfolded, Judge Chin and the other judges on the panel seemed unconvinced by Trump’s arguments. They emphasized that trial judges have broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence, and overturning such decisions is a challenging task. The judges appeared to question how Trump’s legal team could expect to win their appeal given the strength of the initial verdict and the evidence presented.

Trump’s presence in court was notable, especially considering his packed schedule, which includes a debate against Vice President Kamala Harris and various legal challenges. His choice to attend the appeal hearing raised eyebrows, as many speculated he might have better things to focus on, given his ongoing legal troubles.

Following the hearing, Trump held a press conference where he continued to deflect blame, claiming that the case was a “setup” and accusing the judicial system of bias against him. He expressed frustration with the judges and maintained that the entire situation was politically motivated, linking it to his standing in the polls and his upcoming campaign for the presidency.

Despite Trump’s bluster, the reality is that he faces significant legal challenges, including potential financial repercussions from the Carroll case. If the appeal fails, he could be on the hook for millions in damages, further complicating his already precarious financial situation.

The outcome of this appeal will likely take several months, but the odds do not appear to be in Trump’s favor. Given the unanimous verdict against him in the previous trials, it is plausible that the appellate court will uphold the lower court’s decision, allowing E. Jean Carroll to collect her damages.

In summary, Trump’s legal woes continue to mount, and his attempts to dismiss the jury’s findings have been met with skepticism from the appeals court. As he navigates this turbulent legal landscape, the implications of these cases could have far-reaching effects on his political ambitions and public image. The legal battles he faces are not merely a matter of courtroom strategy; they are intertwined with his identity as a public figure and his aspirations for future political office.