Donald Trump on Friday posted a $91.6 million bond to cover the defamation verdict in favor of writer E. Jean Carroll, and began his appeal of the case that arose from his branding her a liar after she accused him of raping her decades ago.

The bond from Federal Insurance Co, part of the insurer Chubb , would cover Carroll’s $83.3 million judgment if Trump were to lose his appeal of the Jan. 26 verdict and refuse to pay.

The posting of a bond also means Carroll, 80, wouldn’t collect on the judgment during the appeals process, which could take years.

  • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
    15·
    9 months ago

    From the article …

    In seeking a new trial, lawyers for Trump said the verdict was tainted by Kaplan’s decision to strike Trump’s testimony about his state of mind when he disparaged Carroll.

    According to the lawyers, Trump’s statement that “I just wanted to defend myself, my family, and, frankly, the presidency” was relevant to whether he had acted maliciously, and that excluding it “all but assured” a big punitive damages award.

    The lawyers also said Kaplan erred in instructing jurors about the burden of proof needed to show malice.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      181·
      9 months ago

      I missed that, thanks. So they are going on the idea that he wasn’t liable for defamation because he didn’t KNOWINGLY make a disparaging comment. So, still litigating the original case, which has no bearing here on the second case. The reason the judge didn’t allow it is that it is a fact of record that he committed defamation originally. The second trial was only for the second defamation based on the first one. Trump is trying to retry the original lawsuit, which he can’t do.

      With luck, this gets rejected instantly,

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
        61·
        9 months ago

        With a normal SCOTUS I think it would. Under the current composition I’m not so sure.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          13·
          9 months ago

          We’re in NY state court here. Federal appeals courts don’t tell states how to run their own laws and assume that each state’s courts understands their laws better. In any case, he’s a very long shot away from going into federal court and then would have to raise a federal question to be heard there. He’s something like 5 appeals away from SCOTUS if he could ever even get into federal court.

          • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
            61·
            9 months ago

            You’re right. I just lept over the state’s juristiction straight to SCOTUS.

            My bad.

            • dezmd@lemmy.worldEnglish
              3·
              9 months ago

              Don’t worry, SCOTUS demonstrated they are willing to leap over states’ jurisdiction by imposing federal power on state primaries used by private political parties, primaries that appoint state based electors to select their candidates for a coming federal election at a private national party meeting, by forcing Trump back onto Colorado’s primary. So I expect them to fast track this too.

              Authoritarianism centralizing control of power seems to be falling into place as the default state of our political environment, even regardless of government frameworks, political party and local/state/national differences. We are all in trouble folks.

        • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
          5·
          9 months ago

          I’m not sure he has a constitutional argument in this case.

          Wait, this is trump. I’m not sure he has a valid constitutional argument here.