Law expert Jonathan Turley reveals the one mistake made Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case

A top law school professor and legal mind has offered his opinion as to why a New York jury found former President Donald Trump partially guilty of sexually assaulting journalist E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s at a department store.

The jury in the case found on Tuesday that Trump is responsible for sexual abuse and defamation charges. Although Trump announced his intention to appeal the decision before the verdict was announced, Turley, a Fox News contributor, analyzed the case on "The Story" and discussed the "greatest challenge" the former president will face in an appeal.

He said:

That dog won't hunt. If that's the argument on appeal, then it's going to be a rather quick appeal. There are other issues here that he might appeal on. Judge Kaplan was really quite yielding on the demands for a witness testimony.

He allowed in a lot of evidence, including the Hollywood access tape and these other witnesses. Obviously, Trump had never been convicted or found guilty, either criminally or civilly in those cases. So there was a lot of evidence here that the defense could say should not have been brought into the case or should have been handled differently.

The problem for President Trump is that this is a mix question of law and fact. There are some legal issues here, like the ones I mentioned about allowing in certain types of testimony. But when it comes to factual determinations, the court of appeals tends to be leery of overturning those. Jury decisions are really sort of iron plated because you have to show that they were clearly erroneous.

They're not going to be able to show that here with all this testimony. So the only way to really unravel this is to say that the jury heard things that they shouldn't have been allowed to hear because they were too prejudicial. The biggest problem for the president, I think at trial, and it's going to be on appeal, is he decided not to testify. He didn't even appear in the courtroom.

That not only triggered inferences, but it likely poisoned the well a bit for these jurors. Jurors don't like it. They don't like it in criminal or civil cases when the key accused party doesn't speak to them. 


Trending Views: Breaking news articles, news and politics videos, politics, news and opinions, news and politics video platform