Trump's attorney speaks after $83.3 million verdict in damages

Summary

Donald 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

00:00

😡 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.

05:01

😐 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.

10:01

🤔 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.

Keywords

💡defamation

Defamation refers to making false statements that damage someone's reputation. This is a key concept because the video discusses lawsuits brought by E. Jean Carroll against Donald Trump for defamation after he denied sexually assaulting her. Defamation is the legal basis for Carroll's lawsuits and the reason damages are being sought.

💡damages

Damages refer to the monetary compensation awarded to a plaintiff if the defendant is found liable. This is a key term because the video covers the damages being sought by Carroll to compensate for reputational harm, including the $83.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages awarded by the jury.

💡liability

Liability means being legally responsible for something. A jury previously found Trump liable or legally responsible for defaming Carroll. This established fact shaped the judge's decisions by preventing Trump's attorneys from re-litigating issues of liability in the damages phase trial.

💡sexual assault

Sexual assault refers to forcing unwanted sexual contact on someone, which Carroll alleges Trump did to her. Trump denying this allegation is what prompted the defamation lawsuits, so sexual assault accusations are central to the cases.

💡jury verdict

A jury verdict is the decision reached by a jury at the conclusion of a trial. The video covers the $83.3 million jury verdict against Trump for defaming Carroll, which decided the damages he owes.

💡punitive damages

Punitive damages are monetary penalties intended to punish defendants for egregious misconduct. The jury awarded Carroll punitive damages to punish Trump for lying about the assault.

💡compensatory damages

Compensatory damages reimburse plaintiffs for actual losses like reputational harm. The jury also awarded Carroll these damages to compensate for harm from Trump's false statements.

💡appeal

An appeal is a request to a higher court to review a trial decision and overturn it if errors occurred. Trump's attorney says they will appeal the verdict, claiming the judge unfairly restricted their defense.

💡evidence

Evidence refers to the information presented in court to prove facts in a trial. Trump's attorney argues the judge wrongly excluded defense evidence, while the prosecution says excluded evidence was irrelevant.

💡harmless error

Harmless error refers to mistakes by a judge that don't affect the trial's outcome. The legal analyst argues that even if excluding defense evidence was an error, it was likely harmless and wouldn't change the verdict.

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