Closing arguments are continuing and Joe Tacopina is going for broke. He’s being uber aggressive. Since the facts and the law are against him, I guess he’s decided that emotion will get him the result he wants. Or, maybe he knows he’s going to lose and so what the hell, go down in flames, right? Meanwhile, E. Jean Carroll’s attorneys are summarizing the facts of what actually was presented to the jury, while Tacopina keeps going on with one wild supposition after another.
The latest is that Carroll got the idea for the rape allegation against Trump from an episode of Law & Order: SVU which featured a character who role-played a rape fantasy in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman’s. This is how low they’re reaching.
All those Qs about Carroll not screaming, calling police etc are Trump trying to have it both ways, Ferrara argues.
“If consent is not the defense, why does it matter if she screamed? Why does it matter if she laughed? Why does it matter if she walked into the dressing rm 1st?”
— nina pullano (@NinaPullano) May 8, 2023
Both good points.
2) His words in the Access Hollywood tape, which Kaplan says prove the alleged attack was his MO: “He pushed her up against a wall, he started kissing her, he didn’t wait. He grabbed her — using his words — by the pussy.”
— nina pullano (@NinaPullano) May 8, 2023
Kaplan concludes by explaining the burden of proof for the battery & defamation counts, and tells jurors the evidence proves both, “but I think you already know that.”
Trump atty Joe Tacopina will begin his closing at noon
— nina pullano (@NinaPullano) May 8, 2023
“Not a single word tearing apart her story comes from Donald Trump,” Tacopina says. “All Donald Trump said was, ‘I didn’t do it.’”
He then shows Trump in depo saying, “If it did happen, it would have been reported in minutes” & “It’s the most ridiculous disgusting story.”
— nina pullano (@NinaPullano) May 8, 2023
Tacopina argues it's implausible Trump would have risked “throwing his life away”
“Apprentice over, Trump Tower over, everything over. Think about it.”
(The Apprentice started in 2004, the alleged rape was in 1996)
— nina pullano (@NinaPullano) May 8, 2023
Deliberations will begin tomorrow morning after Judge Kaplan instructs the jury
— nina pullano (@NinaPullano) May 8, 2023
Would anybody like to lay odds on how long it’s going to take the jury to decide? The smart money is now predicting a verdict by the end of Tuesday. I hope it happens that fast. Then we can watch Donald Trump, convicted rapist, in a town hall on CNN later the same night. That should be amusing.
I’m shocked the Court allowed defense counsel to argue facts not in evidence in closing arguments. That is a no no, and the judge should have squelched it.
I was thinking the same thing. Opening arguments are supposed to lay out what will be presented to the jury. What they say happened/didn’t happen. What evidence they will present and to an extent their overall theory(s). Each side also has an idea of what the other side will argue and will incorporate how they intend to introduce evidence and what type to refute the other side’s case. In both criminal and civil trials. Some judges are more lenient that others in how much latitude they grant to lawyers to “theorize” but in the end woe to the lawyer who makes sh!t up in an opening argument and can’t back it up with some sort of evidence while presenting their case, or in rebuttal including cross-examination of witnesses that will be called. (Discovery in criminal trials is mostly one way – from prosecution to the defense but each side still has to submit an “Order of Proof” meaning witnesses they intend to call and in what order) With closing arguments there is a bit more latitude but from where I sit this crosses the line into “throw as much sh!t at the walls as you can and hope something sticks.” Judges can and do slap down lawyers for that so it’s surprising to me that this particular judge who long ago ran out of patience with Team Trump allowed that. Maybe Tacopina’s aside last Thursday (“You see what I’m dealing with”) got to the judge. Whatever. Perhaps the judge will have “fixed” it with the jury instructions. Jury instructions are after all what the jury follows to reach a verdict and they invariably include an admonition to stick with the evidence admitted on the stand that was subjected to cross-examination by the other side. Human nature being what it is unless a jury is sequestered they will be exposed to speculation from both outside the courtroom and within including this type of wild statement from Tacopina. You can’t un-ring a bell but with proper jury instructions the jurors will likely discount this type of thing.