Donald Trump’s lawyers asked a New York judge Friday to suspend an $83.3 million defamation verdict against the former president, saying there was a “strong probability” that it would be reduced on appeal, if not eliminated.

The lawyers made the request in Manhattan federal court, where a civil jury in late January awarded the sum to advice columnist E. Jean Carroll after a five-day trial that focused only on damages. A judge had ordered the jury to accept the findings of another jury that last year concluded Trump sexually abused Carroll in 1996 and defamed her in 2022.

The second jury focused only on statements Trump made in 2019 while he was president in a case long delayed by appeals.

  • Janoose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Motherfucker was defaming her again just last week at a rally in Michigan. 83m was obviously not punitive enough. Hope she sues him again.

    • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      9 months ago

      She, through her lawyer, already announced they intend to, but as of earlier this week her lawyer said there wasn’t quite enough as of yet.

      Trump obviously won’t leave it alone, though, so knowing her lawyer is looking for it means the next lawsuit is pending.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Doesn’t defamation require damages? At this point how does Trump saying anything damage her more or less?

        • MisterD@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          She can’t have a normal life. She can’t even get groceries be herself without being attacked

          • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            She’s also not a “public person”. She has more privacy rights because of it.

            And no, she isn’t just a “public person” because of the periodic defamation. No court would rule that breaking the law more reduces damages. (Maybe in Alabama?)