Sliced Baloney Always Has Two Sides

BREAKING: Trump demands mistrial in E. Jean Carroll case over deleted emailshttps://t.co/yEP0DM0nAw

— Raw Story (@RawStory) January 19, 2024

"Trump has argued that Carroll immediately began receiving negative messages after an excerpt of Carroll’s book containing the assault allegations was published on New York Magazine’s website – hours before Trump issued his first statement. His attorneys argued Trump shouldn’t be held responsible for what other people did." 

“Plaintiff’s entire claim for emotional harm is undermined because it would show that Plaintiff was receiving death threats before President Trump ever spoke about her,” wrote Habba, saying that because the emails were deleted, the judge shouldn't allow damages to be based on the idea that Carroll received death threats.

This is actually an argument for the jury. It’s a fact question, and Trump can certainly question the veracity of her claims based on the inability to produce the evidence.  But it’s not grounds for a mistrial.

To suggest [Carroll] had an obligation and she violated that obligation and the penalty should be reason for a mistrial, it's outrageous," McCord said. "As Joyce says, it denies that human dignity that you have to sit there, take it, read it over and over as it's coming in through your social media, through your emails, what have you." 

McCord acknowledged the discovery rule stating evidence must be preserved after litigation has been filed, but noted the timeline is important. "A lot of what we're talking about predates litigation and again is about a woman who was getting death threats," McCord said. 

"And [Carroll] continues to be vilified by Mr. Trump, who has gone off during this trial and made the same accusations, the same false accusations, that he's already been found liable for in one previous trial."

Two things there: the response of the jury to the idea of Carroll receiving death threats (which they are free to believe based solely on her testimony), and the grounds for a mistrial. Both issues hurt Trump in this trial. One way, it offends the jury; the other way, it offends the rule of law. Although not enough that we need to be very afraid.

An oral motion for mistrial was made in court by Habba when this was testified to by Carroll in trial, and was already denied by the court. In this renewed motion, Habba argues that if the judge is not inclined to grant the motion or limit damages, he should give a special instruction to the jury that if they find that Carroll intentionally deleted messages, then they must assume that those messages would have exonerated Trump if they still existed.

Again: not the way it works,  and Habba should tell her client to shut up. The jury is the trier of facts. They can decide whether or not Carroll is credible, with or without documents. It’s not even a question of whether the missing documents would exonerate Trump, because that’s not an issue in this trial. The only question is whether or not the fact documents are missing supports her claim for damages, or doesn’t affect the jury’s conclusion at all. They can decide the documents are crucial to her damage claims, or decide her testimony is credible without them. That’s the way trials work.

Trump really has the worst lawyers.