Trump must pay $83.3m for defaming E Jean Carroll

Image source, Reuters

Donald Trump gestures to his supporters as he heads to court on Friday morning

A New York jury has decided Donald Trump should pay $83.3m (£65m) for defaming columnist E Jean Carroll in 2019 while he was US president.

Mr Trump was previously found to have defamed Ms Carroll and to have sexually assaulted her in the 1990s.

The jury's penalty in the civil trial is made up of $18.3m for compensatory damages and $65m in punitive damages.

Mr Trump vowed to appeal, calling the case a witch hunt and the verdict "Absolutely ridiculous!"

The compensatory damages are meant to account for the harm his comments did to her reputation and emotional wellbeing.

The panel also had to come up with a punitive penalty intended to stop Mr Trump from continuing to speak out against her.

It took the jury of seven men and two women less than three hours to reach a verdict on Friday afternoon.

Image source, Reuters

E Jean Carroll outside court in Manhattan, New York City, on Friday

Earlier in the trial the judge advised jurors not to use their real names with each other due to the sensitive nature of the case.

As it concluded, he advised them that they were free to discuss their experience. But he added that in his opinion, they should not tell anyone that they worked on this case.

Mr Trump has continued to regularly deny any wrongdoing, or even that he has ever met Ms Carroll.

A civil trial last year found he sexually assaulted Ms Carroll, a magazine columnist, in a New York department store in the 1990s.

That jury also found him liable of defamation for calling her accusations a lie - and he was ordered to pay her about $5m in damages.

Watch: Trump confuses his wife with E Jean Carroll

This case focused on different defamatory comments made by Mr Trump in 2019.

Ms Carroll's lawyers had asked for $24m in compensation damages - made up of $12m for reputational harm and $12m for emotional harm.

This was more money than they had asked for in the first trial because Ms Carroll argued that his comments as a sitting president hurt her more.

As the jury's decision was read in court on Friday, Ms Carroll was seen hugging her attorneys.

Mr Trump, who abruptly left court earlier, did not return to hear the trial's conclusion. The judge had warned earlier that "we will have no outbursts".

During closing arguments earlier on Friday, a lawyer for Ms Carroll told the court that her reputation had been severely harmed by the former president's comments denying he sexually assaulted her.

"This case is also about punishing Donald Trump... This trial is about getting him to stop once and for all," she said.

Mr Trump's lawyer, Alina Habba, had argued that he should pay no further damages to Ms Carroll, arguing that her claims have "more holes than Swiss cheese".

Ms Habba said that her client "should not have to pay" for the threats that Ms Carroll received after coming forth to describe her account with Mr Trump.

"He does not condone them. He did not direct them," she said.

After the ruling, he posted on social media: "I fully disagree with both verdicts, and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party.

"Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon. They have taken away all First Amendment Rights. THIS IS NOT AMERICA!"

Mr Trump has repeatedly claimed the various legal cases he faces are being orchestrated by allies of US President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

As the Republican party's White House frontrunner, Mr Trump looks set for a rematch against Mr Biden in the November 2024 general election.

Mr Trump faces four criminal cases for a total of 91 felony counts, and is the first president in US history to be charged with a crime.

Dmitriy Shakhnevich, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told the BBC that Ms Carroll's lawyers had successfully argued only a significant amount of damages could compel Mr Trump to stop defaming her.

"What the jury is saying is this is a wealthy man who's not stopping, and the only way to stop him is to hurt him" financially, he said, calling the penalty "a very, very large sum".

University of Richmond law professor Carol Tobias told the BBC that "the lack of respect which Trump exhibited for the judge, the jurors, the opposing counsel, and especially Carroll" may have served to strengthen her case, and led them to determine that "a large damages award was appropriate and warranted".

"After all, punitive damages are intended to punish and make an example of the defendant."

With reporting by Max Matza and Kayla Epstein