Is there such thing as a fair Trump trial?

I’m an unlikely defender of Donald Trump. Politically, he’s not my boy. Most of the former president’s hyperbolic rants make me cringe. Yet last week, I had to agree with DT that a jury’s award of $83.3 million of his assets to E. Jean Carroll for defamation was “absolutely ridiculous.”

Keeping track of all the cases against Trump can be challenging, so let’s review. In 2019, while Trump was still president, Carroll went public with the accusation that back in 1995 — or was it 1996 — he raped her in the lingerie dressing room of Manhattan’s upscale clothing retailer Bergdorf Goodman. Trump denied the encounter had ever occurred and claimed he’d never met the woman; she was “totally lying” and besides, she was not his type. Previously an advice columnist for Elle magazine, Carroll sued Trump for defamation, the case soon getting bogged down by appeals.

This case looks to the ‘wrong’ half of the electorate like one more attempt to hamper Trump’s presidential bid

In 2022, Carroll sued Trump in civil trial for rape. The jury didn’t buy the rape charge, but did find Trump liable for the lesser “sexual abuse” — awarding her $5 million. When she continued to publicly allude to the “rape,” Trump filed a defamation countersuit. The same hardly neutral judge threw the countersuit out on the grounds that to ordinary people “rape” and “sexual abuse” were the same thing. I beg to differ.

Trump kept denying his culpability in rallies and on social media, calling Carroll a “whack job.” Carroll resumed her defamation suit and won. Her lawyers were asking for minimum damages of $10 million. After conferring for under three hours, the jury awarded her $83.3 million instead.

That’s serious money even to Trump, who may scramble to rustle up the cash to put in escrow as he appeals the verdict. Carroll’s lawyers deployed videos of Trump boasting about his wealth against him, suggesting that only a whopping award would make him feel the pinch. But it’s worth asking whether the jury would have levied such a staggering financial penalty had the same case been brought against any defendant other than Donald Trump.

Who is sui generis. Unless he or she has been in a coma since 2015, is there an American who’s not already formed an opinion of the man? Can Trump ever confront jurors and judges who are not predisposed to convict or exonerate before a word is said?

All these E. Jean Carroll trials have been held in New York. I’m registered to vote in New York. The state is so drastically Democratic that in November I will enjoy the rare luxury option of voting for a third-party candidate as an ineffectual protest against a Biden-Trump rematch with no fear of increasing the likelihood that NY’s electoral votes go to Trump. New York judgeships and juries must be replete with Democrats. The scale of this award reeks of politics.

The rape case would also have been contaminated by the minor matter that a year and some beforehand the defendant was a highly divisive president of the United States. The charge could not be pursued in criminal court, with strict “beyond a reasonable doubt” standards, because the alleged incident occurred a quarter-century earlier, and the statute of limitations had run out. Requiring only a better than 50 percent chance of guilt, even Carroll’s civil case was only possible thanks to a new law in New York allowing adult sexual assault victims a one-time chance to litigate for damages, despite the statute of limitations having run out — a law passed in the wake of #MeToo, and a good demonstration of why legislation that plays to the social hysteria of the moment is usually a bad idea. Statutes of limitation exist for a reason. Decades later, recollections warp and fade, while material evidence is often non-existent. Aside from producing two witnesses to whom she confided after the assault, Carroll presented no corroborating evidence. All she had was her story.

As for that story, it’s never gelled for me — though I’m nervous about questioning the particulars, lest I end up in court. In her 2019 account in New York magazine, Carroll claims to have met Trump at the door of the department store. He stopped and said, “Hey, you’re that advice lady!” Really? Trump reads advice columns in women’s magazines? So loyally that he recognizes her face? Carroll couldn’t pinpoint the year this happened, and in trial had to rejig her timeline when it was pointed out that the designer coat-dress she described herself as wearing hadn’t yet been manufactured. Yet in the text, her memory of their flirtatious banter is surely too vivid — too long, too detailed and entirely couched in direct quotes. She can’t recall to what degree she was physically violated, and her description of the attack in the dressing room is anatomically dubious.

The sole proof Carroll’s lawyers produced that Trump had indeed met Carroll before is one photo from a crowded 1987 party. Having met many thousands of people over his lifetime, he wouldn’t necessarily recall a brief encounter with one blonde woman. I forget most of the new people I’ve met at a party by the time I get home.

In January’s defamation trial, Trump was forbidden from “disputing or attempting to undermine” the original sexual abuse conviction. While outside the courtroom he may continue to deny that the assault happened, he may not disparage Carroll’s character. As the New York Times summarized, “defending yourself against an accusation is not the same as debasing the person who is making it.” But that’s splitting hairs. To deny the assault happened is implicitly to call Carroll a liar, thus implicitly to defame her character.

With such over-the-top damages, this case looks to the “wrong” half of the electorate like one more attempt to hamper Trump’s presidential bid. Judges and juries in any of these court cases can’t weigh the particulars without also being keenly aware that the verdict could affect who’s the next president. It’s doubtful that Donald J. Trump can get a genuinely fair trial anywhere in the country.

This article was originally published in The Spectator’s UK magazine. Subscribe to the World edition here.