Attorneys for former President Donald Trump appealed the $5 million verdict in E. Jean Carroll’s case at a federal appeals court on Friday, but no decision has been made.
Trump attended the hearing at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City. Oral arguments were brief, and one of the judges ended by saying, “We will take this case under advisement.”
Carroll alleged that Trump raped her at the Bergdorf Goodman department store across from Trump Tower in Manhattan sometime in 1996. She was seeking $12 million.
FEDERAL JUDGE REJECTS TRUMP REQUEST FOR NEW TRIAL IN E. JEAN CARROLL SUIT, SAYS HE MUST PAY $83.3 MILLION
A federal jury in New York City decided last year that Trump was not liable for rape but was liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The former president was ordered to pay $5 million in that trial.
Trump has vehemently denied Carroll’s allegations. He has repeatedly said he does not know her and has “absolutely no idea who this woman is.”
His denials resulted in Carroll slapping Trump with a separate defamation suit, claiming his response caused harm to her reputation.
Trump and his legal team insist that Carroll’s allegations are fabricated, with the former president’s initial reaction including an accusation that Carroll was motivated by wanting to sell copies of her book.
TRUMP DEFENDS HIMSELF ON THE STAND, BLASTS E JEAN CARROLL TRIAL: ‘THIS IS NOT AMERICA’
The jury, this year, found that Carroll was injured as a result of statements Trump made while in the White House in 2019.
The jury decided that Trump’s statements were made to harm Carroll and awarded her $65 million in punitive damages. In total, with the reputational repair program, the jury said Carroll should be paid $83.3 million.
Trump had appealed that fine and requested a new trial in the defamation suit, but was denied in April.
Trump attorneys on Friday are expected to argue that the jury’s verdict should be tossed because evidence was allowed at trial that should have been excluded, and that other evidence was excluded that should have been permitted.
The court is unlikely to rule on the matter before the November presidential election.
Fox News Channel’s Tamara Gitt and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source