Victor Davis Hanson, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, has flagged a potential legal error in the high-profile civil suit between Donald Trump and E. Jean Carroll that could pave the way for a reversal on appeal. Hanson, discussing the case on his podcast, pointed to an issue with the language used by Judge Lewis Kaplan, who oversaw the trial.

In May 2023, a New York jury found Trump liable for sexual battery and defamation in a case filed by Carroll, though it did not convict him of rape. Victor Davis Hanson has suggested that a statement made by the judge could be grounds for reversing the decision on appeal, The Daily Caller reported.

The case began with Carroll’s accusation that Trump sexually attacked her in the mid-1990s. The jury ruled that Trump was liable for sexual assault, but it did not find sufficient evidence to convict him of rape, a distinction that became a focal point in the legal proceedings.

During a segment on ABC, host George Stephanopoulos repeatedly stated that Trump was “liable for rape,” prompting Trump to file a defamation lawsuit against both ABC and Stephanopoulos. Court documents revealed that, in December 2023, the court ordered ABC to pay $15 million as a charitable contribution to Trump’s presidential foundation and museum by the end of the year as part of the settlement.

Defamation Lawsuit and Judge's Error Stir Legal Debate

The defamation lawsuit stemmed from a segment in March 2023, in which Stephanopoulos questioned Rep. Nancy Mace about her support for Trump, simultaneously repeating the claim that Trump was “liable for rape.” This led Trump to file a defamation suit against both ABC and Stephanopoulos. According to court filings, ABC was required to make a “charitable contribution” to Trump’s foundation as part of the resolution.

The court’s handling of language during the Carroll case also raised concerns. Hanson noted that Judge Kaplan’s comment seemed to reflect a misunderstanding of the jury's findings, stating that the judge had essentially conflated rape and sexual assault in a manner that could undermine the fairness of the trial.

In response to the verdict, Trump’s legal team filed for a new trial, arguing that the term “sexual abuse” should have a more precise definition in the context of the trial. The defense suggested that the judge’s comments about rape, especially after the jury had clearly separated rape from sexual assault in their verdict, could have prejudiced the case.

Judge's Response and Legal Repercussions of the Case

Judge Kaplan’s response, however, emphasized that while the jury did not find that Carroll had proven the charge of rape under New York Penal Law, the finding still indicated that Trump had committed an act of sexual assault. Kaplan wrote in his ruling that the failure to prove rape in the legal sense did not mean that Carroll’s accusation was false or without merit.

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’” Kaplan stated. This clarification was intended to address the jury’s decision, but it has become a point of contention in the ongoing appeal process.

Hanson argues that Kaplan’s statement—equating rape and sexual assault—may have biased the trial and led to a prejudiced interpretation of the evidence. He claims the judge’s comment suggests pre-existing bias, undermining the trial’s impartiality.

Hanson’s Legal Observations Draw Attention

Victor Davis Hanson’s observations on his podcast have drawn significant attention as he suggests that the issue with the judge’s statement could be the key to overturning the verdict. Legal analysts have noted that any potential error made by the judge during the trial could become a major point of focus for Trump’s legal team in their efforts to have the case reconsidered.

Hanson argues that the judge’s public remarks may have caused the public and the legal community to misunderstand the jury’s decision. He contends that this confusion strongly supports the basis for the appeal.

The Carroll case remains one of the most closely followed legal battles involving Trump, particularly as it relates to issues of sexual assault, defamation, and public perceptions of the former president. As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome of Trump’s appeal will likely have significant implications for future defamation cases and legal precedents in the United States.

Possible Impact of Legal Reversal on Defamation Cases

The ongoing appeals process has sharpened the focus on the legal nuances surrounding defamation, particularly in cases involving high-profile figures like Donald Trump. If the court grants the appeal, it could reshape how U.S. courts handle future defamation lawsuits, especially those involving public figures and highly charged allegations.

For now, the case's outcome remains uncertain. Legal experts are closely monitoring the appeal, with many anticipating that the judge’s remarks will play a pivotal role in deciding whether the verdict stands or if a new trial proceeds.

As the legal drama unfolds, it underscores the complexity of defamation and sexual assault cases, particularly those involving public figures. With national attention fixed on the case, any reversal could influence how the judicial system approaches similar high-profile cases in the future.