Trump's attorney speaks after $83.3 million verdict in damages
Summary
TLDRDonald Trump's lawyer Alina Habba gave a heated statement after he was ordered to pay $83.3 million in damages for defaming E. Jean Carroll. Habba claimed Trump was stripped of defenses and hamstrung at trial, but legal analyst Brian Buckmire said she misled the public. The judge restricted arguments because liability was already decided. Buckmire said the judge overstepped in vetting questions but doesn't see grounds for appeal. Habba vowed to appeal but Buckmire sees Trump's inflammatory statements, not trial errors, as the issue.
Takeaways
- 😡 Trump's lawyer claims he was stripped of defenses and not allowed a fair trial
- 😤 The judge limited defenses to prevent retry of issues already decided
- 🤔 The appeals court will likely uphold the judge's decisions
- 😌 Trump was found liable for defaming Carroll in a previous trial
- 👎 Habba misleads by claiming Trump was prevented from defending himself
- 🤥 Habba falsely claims Carroll's friend was paid to testify against Trump
- 💰 The jury awarded $83M in reputational damages against Trump
- 😣 Habba vows to appeal and fight the verdict
- ⚖️ Legal analyst says judge was paternalistic but no reversible error
- 🎬 Habba focused on optics rather than the legal merits of the case
Q & A
What case was Trump's attorney Alina Habba referring to in her statement?
-Habba was referring to the defamation case brought against Trump by author E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s. A jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
What defenses was Trump not allowed to make in the case?
-The judge did not allow Trump to argue that the sexual assault did not occur or that Carroll was not credible, since a previous jury already found Trump liable for defaming Carroll.
Why does Habba say the case was unfair?
-Habba argued it was unfair that Trump was stripped of defenses he could have made and that the judge restricted the questions she could ask Trump when he took the stand.
Does legal analyst Brian Buckmire agree with Habba's statements?
-No. Buckmire says Habba was misleading the public, as liability and damages are separate issues. Trump chose not to appear at the liability trial and argue Carroll was not credible.
What defenses was Habba allowed to make?
-She was allowed to argue Carroll did not suffer actual damages from Trump's statements since she was not well-known before her accusations against Trump.
Did the judge make mistakes in the trial?
-Yes, according to Buckmire the judge was overly paternalistic in telling Habba what questions she could ask Trump. However, these were likely harmless errors.
What damages was Trump ordered to pay?
-$83.3 million total - $10.3 million in compensatory damages to Carroll and $73 million in punitive damages.
Is the verdict likely to be overturned on appeal?
-Unlikely, unless Habba can show the judge made serious legal errors that impacted the outcome of damages awarded.
Why does Buckmire say Habba was not practicing law responsibly?
-Because she falsely claimed Trump was not allowed to argue the sexual assault did not occur, when Trump chose not to appear at that liability trial.
What is Trump's current status in relation to the 2024 election?
-Habba stated Trump is the leading candidate and obvious nominee for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.
Outlines
😡 Trump attorney decries lack of defense allowed in trial
Trump's attorney Alina Habba gives an impassioned statement to the press after Trump is ordered to pay damages in a defamation lawsuit. She complains that the judge did not allow Trump to raise certain defenses in court and prevented experts and witness testimony, creating an unfair trial.
😐 Judge limited defense arguments due to prior liability ruling
ABC reporter Aaron Katersky provides clarification that the judge limited Trump's defenses because another jury already found him liable for defaming author E. Jean Carroll. The judge said Trump could not retry the liability phase.
🤔 Legal analyst assesses defense arguments and appeal chances
Legal analyst Brian Buckmire analyzes the defense arguments, disagreeing with claims of unfairness but acknowledging the judge may have overstepped regarding proposed witness questioning. He doubts these issues would be grounds for a successful appeal.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡defamation
💡damages
💡liability
💡sexual assault
💡jury verdict
💡punitive damages
💡compensatory damages
💡appeal
💡evidence
💡harmless error
Highlights
The speaker introduces the topic of using AI to generate art and some of the key considerations around ethics, copyright, and creativity.
The speaker discusses examples of AI art generators like DALL-E 2, Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion, and how they can create images from text prompts.
There is a debate around whether AI-generated art should be considered creative works or just an extension of the training data.
The speaker highlights issues around copyright and ownership for AI art - who owns the copyright if a human didn't manually create it?
Some believe AI art threatens jobs for human artists and reduces the need for human creativity in art.
Others argue AI can enhance and assist human creativity rather than replace it, working collaboratively with artists.
There are concerns AI art reflects biases in training data, leading to problematic or offensive outputs.
The speaker discusses potential regulations around disclosing when art is AI-generated to manage public expectations.
Watermarking AI art is proposed as a method to track origination and protect copyright.
The speaker highlights the importance of diversity and representation in AI training data to reduce bias.
More public education on AI capabilities and limitations may be needed to set reasonable expectations.
The speaker emphasizes the need for ongoing discussions between technology leaders, artists, lawmakers and the public around AI art ethics.
Clear guidelines will help balance innovation and responsible use as AI art evolves.
The speaker concludes by reiterating the transformative potential of AI art and importance of proactive ethical considerations.
Listeners are left to reflect on the positives and negatives of this emerging technology and how society can responsibly steer its impact.
Transcripts
Donald Trump's attorney at the mics
right
now it's about representing president
trump it is the proudest thing I could
ever do what I am having second thoughts
about is the license that I stand here
with that the people in there are
supposed to
have I have not spoken because I respect
my ethics while I'm on trial but let me
now speak about what has happened I have
sat on trial after trial for months in
this State the state of New York
attorney general Leticia James and now
this
weeks weeks why because president Trump
is leading in the polls and now we see
what you get in New York so don't get it
twisted whoever asked me that question I
am so proud to stand with pres president
Trump but I am not proud to stand with
what I saw in that courtroom I'm not
finished let me just finish and I'll
take questions
please before I walked into
court that judge decided that every
single defense president Trump had we
were not allowed to raise in front of
the jury it is in writing and I
encourage the journalist the real
journalist to take the minute to look at
his
orders there was no
proof and I couldn't prove that she
didn't bring in the dress there was no
DNA there was no expert my experts were
denied two of them two of them were
denied to come
in they didn't bring let me bring up
that Reed Hoffman funded Miss Kaplan and
you know what we got in there that my
witness who was her friend who said that
she is a drug addict and the drug addict
is herself that friend I found out in
there was paid for by Miss kaplan's firm
and that is disgusting that is a
violation of everything I stand for and
that is why I stand with Trump and that
is why so so many Americans are so proud
that he is running again and so excited
to run to The Ballot Box but don't get
it twisted we are seeing a violation of
our justice system ladies and
gentlemen you are not allowed to be
stripped of every defense that you
have you are not allowed to be told that
you can't bring it up and imagine a
point where a judge tells the lawyer
before your client the former president
of the United States the leading
candidate and obvious n nominee for the
Republican party before he takes the
stand to defend himself Miss habba tell
me the questions you're going to ask in
open court and tell me exactly what he's
going to respond and then edited my
questions edited the response he was
allowed to give and guess what my client
did he took the stand he abided by the
rules of this corrupt system that I have
seen we will immediately appeal we will
set aside that ridiculous jury and I
just want to remind you all of one thing
I will continue with President Trump to
fight for everybody's First Amendment
right to speak everybody's a right to
defend themselves when they are
wrongfully accused and to be able to say
I didn't do it and to double and triple
and quadruple down and say this is wrong
this is wrong but we are in the state of
New York we are in a New York jury and
that is why we are seeing these witch
hunts these hoaxes as he calls them and
this is another one of them be brought
in New York in states where they know
they will get juries like this it will
not deter us we fighting and I you we
didn't wi today but we will record that
was made in there and the behavior I saw
in there some which was reported widely
today gave us the most perfect record on
appeal and even if I needed it which I
don't we were stripped of every
defense every single defense before we
walked in there and I am proud to stand
with President Trump because he showed
up he stood up he took the stand and he
faced this judge and you know what I'll
continue to do so with him yes Miss H is
the all right there is Donald Trump's
lawyer Alina habba uh heatedly uh making
her statement to the press in public
after her client former president Donald
Trump was hit with that 83.3 million
verdict in compensatory damages in
reputational repair money and in
punitive damages by this jury in the
second defamation case brought against
Trump by author egene Carrol let me go
to Aaron kki outside the courthouse
there uh Aaron just to clear it up a
little bit uh she's saying that she was
treated unfairly her client was treated
unfairly in this case because he wasn't
allowed to make certain defenses what
was the judge's
reasoning the judge was concerned he
said about putting inadmissible evidence
before the jury because a prior uh jury
in this very Courthouse back in May
Terry found that that former president
Trump was liable for sexually assaulting
and defaming egene Carol and the judge
said uh it is a a widely accepted legal
principle that this cannot be a doover
by a disappointed litigant and so he put
very strict guard rails on what was able
to be argued here uh and he instructed
the jury both at the outset and again
before they deliberated that they had to
accept as true that Donald Trump
sexually assaulted Eugene Caroll in in
the Bergdorf Goodman dressing room as
she alleged back in the 1990s and that
his statements denying it were
defamatory they weren't allowed to
consider anything else and so Trump was
not allowed to to to testify otherwise
and his attorneys were not allowed to
argue otherwise and so in some ways
helina habba is right she was hamstrung
in in the defenses that she could make
uh but by Design because the only issue
here was what uh damages Donald Trump
should pay crystal clear as always Aaron
kerki thank you very much for that and I
want to take it to our ABC News analyst
legal analyst and trial attorney and
author Brian buckmire so Brian back to
you uh on what Alina habba just said and
what Aaron explained was the judge right
to do that I guess he didn't want to
have a rerun of a trial that a jury had
already considered the evidence and
found that in fact Donald Trump had
defamed uh uh egene Carroll when he
denied sexually assaulting her so the
judge didn't want to do that again uh so
do you think the Judge that's going to
uphold that's going to be upheld on
appeal that the appeals court will say
yes that's the proper way to handle a
case like this so Terry I say this as
Elena habba and I have something in
common we are both officers of the Court
bar in the state of New York I'm also
barred in the Southern and Eastern
districts of New York and the Supreme
Court of the United States of this
country what she is saying is wrong and
absolutely misleading to the public so
let me just fact check real quick
these are two separate issues and I'll
slightly disagree with Aon as well she
was not hamstrung in one case where we
talking about liability whether or not
he committed sexual abuse of EEG Caroll
that was resolved the question of
Damages does not talk about whether or
not this sexual abuse occurred it's not
relevant that issue has already been
decided Donald Trump decided not to show
up to that trial decided not to make any
arguments any arguments as to the
defense as to whether or not sexual
abuse occurred whether or not EG and
Carol is credible as to what she said
happened in that uh in that store in
that changing room that is not an issue
in fact in this the defamation case for
damages it is separate and apart what
she is doing there is campaigning it is
not being an attorney it is two
different things I do not know what she
was doing we clearly are not practicing
in the same bar or in the same reality
because what she is saying is incorrect
what she did do and she did do some
great things she argued at offense of
these are not actual damages because
that's what she was allowed to argue she
was allowed to argue that een Carroll
became a a household name before Donald
Trump uh came into the Limelight that we
many people didn't know who egene Carol
was until she fought back against Donald
Trump and that she did not in fact have
damages alen Haba great argument that's
your defense there but to say that this
didn't happen to say that she's not
credible to say that people were paid
for to testify you should have shown up
to the first trial and to argue the way
that you're doing to mislead people is
is horrible and you should not count
yourself as someone who has the the
thoughtfulness and the truthfulness to
argue what happened in this case argue
what you had to argue argue what you
could argue and to answer your your
question more directly Terry yes upon
appeal some of the strongest argu arents
are to say that a judge incorrectly
applied the law that they restricted
evidence from coming in and it often
does lead you to a victory but I don't
see an error here the judge was correct
to say this is what you're arguing this
is what you can argue now was a little
paternalistic to go so far as to ask an
attorney what questions are you gonna
ask what answers are your client G to
give I agree with Haba and that she's
right you shouldn't have to ask that
question if she asked a question of her
client and he said something
inappropriate Let It Be objected let it
strucking from the record as he did on
many of the questions here uh but I
don't think he went so far that an
appeal would say you know what there's
more than what we call harmless error
and it should be reversed some missteps
were maken by the judge I agree in some
point but not to the point that Haba is
articulating just there got it that's
very helpful the the the notion that uh
that the judge which did sound a little
paternalistic tell me exactly what your
questions are going to be to the witness
and I'll tell you which ones you can ask
and which ones you can't ask that that's
a heavy-handed judge but you don't think
that's reversible
error there's this thing the concept is
called um harmless error where you could
say a judge did make a mistake but did
it go to the overall impact of the case
so let's say the judge doesn't do that
do you still think we're we're not going
to get an 83.3 million uh settlement for
EEG Carol and most people would say n i
I think it's still going to be pretty
hot and so we would call that harmless
error and I don't think it would
overturn it I do think the Judge
overstepped there but overall I don't
see the appellant issues but I will wait
for the 30 days for Elena Haba to to to
write that to write the motion and then
we can judge it from there got it thank
you Bri hi everyone George
Stephanopoulos here thanks for checking
out the ABC News YouTube channel if
you'd like to get more videos show
highlights and watch live event coverage
click on the right over here to
subscribe to our Channel and don't
forget to download the ABC News app for
breaking news alerts thanks for watching
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
Trump gets bad news amid effort to appeal $83 million verdict
Adv Mngomezulu lodge case against Judge Ratha Mokgoatleng ! Ziyakhala 😮💨
State v. Shaw Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Breaking Down Trump’s Options to Pay $454M Civil-Fraud Penalty | WSJ
Melania Trump plagiarism charges overshadow convention speech
¡OSOTE de SANTI GIMÉNEZ!🐻|CHICHARITO manda MENSAJITO AL AME😱|¡ADIÓS RAFA MÁRQUEZ!
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)