Trump Wins More Time to File Motions in Support of New Trial

Former President Donald Trump sits in the New York State Supreme Court during the civil fraud trial against the Trump Organization in New York City on Jan. 11, 2024. Peter Foley/AFP via Getty Images

A federal judge has granted former President Donald Trump’s request for more time to file motions in support of his request for a new trial in a case in which the former president has been ordered to pay $83 million for supposedly defaming author E. Jean Carroll.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan on March 14 signed off on a request by President Trump for extra time to file replies in support of his motions requesting a new trial or change of verdict in the case, which he argued was “infected” by the judge’s errors.

President Trump now has until April 9 to file legal briefs in support of his March 5 motion for the judge to grant a new trial and/or alter or amend the $83 million judgment against him in a case over allegedly defamatory remarks he made against Ms. Carroll.

Judge Kaplan’s decision came after Ms. Carroll’s attorneys had requested more time to respond to President Trump’s request for a new trial in the case.

A day earlier, the judge approved a $91.6 million bond posted by President Trump to delay payment of the $83 million judgment while the case makes its way through the appeals process. The bond itself, which bears President Trump’s signature, was filed in court on March 14.

In a March 5 motion asking the judge to grant a new trial and/or alter or amend the judgment against him, President Trump’s attorneys cited “extreme restrictions” imposed on his courtroom testimony and wrong instructions given to the jury.

Trial ‘Infected by Two Related Errors’

In January, a jury decided that President Trump must pay Ms. Carroll over $83 million in a case that claimed he defamed her when he denied allegations of sexual assault.

President Trump has maintained his innocence and has called the case a “Biden Directed Witch Hunt” that’s being used as a political weapon.

The former president filed a motion on March 5, requesting a new trial due to alleged judicial errors.

“The trial’s outcome was infected by two related errors: The exclusion of President Trump’s testimony about his own state of mind, which was highly relevant to the issue of common-law malice; and the erroneous jury instruction on the definition of common-law malice,” President Trump’s attorneys wrote in a memorandum in support of their motion.

President Trump’s attorneys argued that each of these errors considered separately is serious enough to render the jury verdict tainted and justifies his request for a new trial.

The attorneys wrote in the memorandum that the trial-court proceedings didn’t comply with the definition of common-law malice in multiple ways that were prejudicial.

One of these was by prohibiting President Trump from expressing the view that he believed the statements he made about Ms. Carroll were true.

‘Wanted to Defend Myself’

In their filing, President Trump’s attorneys pointed to an exchange ahead of his courtroom testimony where the judge demanded to know beforehand everything the former president was going to say and went over it in detail before allowing the jury to hear the former president’s statements.

“When President Trump took the stand, the Court struck even the very limited testimony about President Trump’s state of mind that the questions allowed,” his attorneys wrote.

“Did you even instruct anyone to hurt Ms. Carroll in your statements?” Ms. Habba, as defense counsel, posed the question to President Trump while he took the witness stand.

“No,” President Trump replied. “I just wanted to defend myself, my family, and frankly, the presidency.”

However, Ms. Carroll’s attorney raised an immediate objection, which Judge Kaplan sustained, ordering the jury to disregard everything beyond “no.”

President Trump’s lawyers argued that the judge made a mistake in restricting the testimony.

Public figures in similar circumstances to President Trump have “compelling motivations” to deny allegations for reasons other than a desire to harm the plaintiff, they argued, adding that by foreclosing any such testimony, and “erroneously striking the one sentence of President Trump’s testimony on this point—the Court all but assured that the jury would make a baseless punitive-damages award.”

(Left) Former President Donald Trump in New York on Jan. 26, 2024. (Right) E. Jean Carroll arrives at Manhattan federal court in New York on Jan. 26, 2024. Eduardo Munoz/Reuters; Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Jury Instruction ‘Erroneous and Prejudicial’

President Trump’s attorneys also argued that the jury was misled by “erroneous and prejudicial” instructions regarding common-law malice.

The former president’s counsel submitted proposed instructions that punitive damage instructions to the jury should make clear that to meet the legal standard for common-law malice is for the intent to injury to be the “sole motivation.”

However, the court overruled this proposal. Instead, Judge Kaplan told jurors they can find that a statement is made with intent to harm the defendant not only if “it is made with a deliberate intent to injure or made out of hatred, ill will or spite,” but also if it is “made with willful, wanton, or reckless disregard of another’s rights.”

The former president’s attorneys argued that the judge’s instructions disregarded New York’s “well-established ’sole motivation' requirement for common-law malice” and, as such, were incorrect.

“This instruction was erroneous, and the error was prejudicial,” they argued.

President Trump’s attorneys asked that the $83.3 million in damages awarded to Ms. Carroll be sharply reduced.

This legal saga stems from a defamation lawsuit Ms. Carroll filed over allegedly defamatory comments President Trump made about her in 2019 when she first publicly accused him of sexual assault.

After President Trump denied Ms. Carroll’s allegations in 2019, Ms. Carroll filed a lawsuit accusing the former president of having defamed her.

President Trump has denied all of Ms. Carroll’s allegations.