Judge Lewis Kaplan purposefully did not disclose why he advised jurors to keep their identities secret in the high profile case

After the verdict was read in the defamation trial between writer E Jean Carroll and former president Donald Trump, the judge overseeing the trial suggested the jurors never reveal their identities.

At the end of the two-week trial, the jurors, who were purposefully made anonymous due to the high-profile nature of the case, are now free to identify themselves by name if they wish.

“My advice to you is that you never disclose that you were on this jury,” Judge Lewis Kaplan advised them in the courtroom.

Judge Kaplan did not explicitly explain why he was offering the advice, however, previous legal actions against the ex-president have led to threats of violence against both jurors and judges from Trump supporters.

  • @DBT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    115
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    His cult is a threat here so much so that the judge told them not to tell anyone they were involved.

    Everyone knows this is a legit warning even though trump didn’t tell anyone to do anything here.

    Imagine if trump actually told his supporters (cult) to take action. Something like, “go down to the capitol and fight like hell”! …. Oh wait…

    • Ann Archy
      link
      fedilink
      410 months ago

      This is exactly like Hitler. Wow, for once it is literally Hitler.

  • FuglyDuck
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11510 months ago

    Judge Lewis Kaplan purposefully did not disclose why he advised jurors to keep their identities secret in the high profile case

    Isn’t that pretty freaking self evident? “If they find out who you are… you’re dead. Don’t let them find out. We will help you.”

    • @jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      3810 months ago

      Other jurors in his previous cases have gone public, or have even been doxxed before, so yeah, it probably needs to be said explicitly.

      • FuglyDuck
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2510 months ago

        and how many of them have received massive amounts of death threats and harassment?

        I’m guessing… all of them.

  • Ricky Rigatoni
    link
    fedilink
    9810 months ago

    These are the kinds of instructions given for jurors of mafia and cartel trials. Which is perfectly fitting. Hope the jurors stay safe.

      • @Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        -210 months ago

        My eyes drifted to the next reply before properly finishing your sentence and I read “And Trump is a dick-eater.”

        Now, homophonic attacks aren’t good or encouraged, but it was such an unexpected bitter non sequitur that I had to chuckle.

    • @Steve@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -1710 months ago

      Murderous assholes sure, but coward? Not sure what you’re referring to with that one.

      • @Pratai@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        710 months ago

        They’re afraid of people that think differently than they do. A thing that doesn’t fit their worldview terrifies them.

      • @lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        410 months ago

        Remember when Ashli Babbitt the terrorist got shot for trying to reach Congressional representatives? What did all the other little cowards do but immediately gasp and stop their little game once they were hit by reality served by lead.

  • @jballs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9310 months ago

    “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!” [Trump] claimed…

    This mother fucker is so dumb he thinks civil suits are brought about by the federal government. Sometimes I still can’t believe this guy was actually president.

    • @nyctre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      52
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      That’s for his followers, to rile them up and keep them loyal, that’s not really what he believes. Not to say he isn’t a dumb cunt, he is, but this is not an example of that.

        • @Tristaniopsis@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          1310 months ago

          I can already hear the outraged clucking from gaggles of fuckwits as they prepare to empty their retirement savings to send to him in support.

      • @ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I agree it’s mostly for his followers, but I think it’s arguable that it’s an example of both. I’m sure he really doesn’t know (or understand the difference) or confused this with another trial, or both.

        • @JoBo@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          010 months ago

          He is not as smart as he thinks or would like everyone else to believe but he does know exactly what he is doing here. Truth does not matter to the right and right-wing authoritarians (who are the people who follow narcissistic fascists) just love this schtick.

          This was written in 2006 and every time I read it, I have to check the date wasn’t actually 2016:

          So (to foreshadow later chapters a little) suppose you are a completely unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say whatever he has to say to get elected. (I apologize for putting you in this role, but it will only last for one more sentence.) Whom are you going to try to lead, high RWAs or low RWAs? Isn’t it obvious? The easy-sell high RWAs will open up their arms and wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility. Those crabby low RWAs, on the other hand, will eye you warily when your credibility is suspect because you sing their song? So the scum-bucket politicians will usually head for the right-wing authoritarians, because the RWAs hunger for social endorsement of their beliefs so much they’re apt to trust anyone who tells them they’re right.

          The Authoritarians

    • @Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      510 months ago

      I swear in a hundred years there will be arguments in every history class about whether his entire political career was even real or some kind of parable to frighten young people into voting.

      • @jballs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        310 months ago

        About 20 years ago, I used to work with an older dude who was just on the verge of retirement. That guy hated Nixon. He would occasionally go on rants about how much of a piece of shit ol’ Tricky Dick was. But at the time, Nixon was 30 years removed from office, and all that shit happened before I was born. So I just kind of blew it off as an over-exaggeration of this one dude.

        But yeah, in about 25-30 years, we’ll be talking to kids in their 20s trying to explain the complete and utter shit-stain that was Donald Trump. And they’ll humor us, but mostly they’ll just be thinking “I’m sure it wasn’t that bad. The guy was elected president after all.”

  • Timwi
    link
    fedilink
    5310 months ago

    The jurors are heros. Let’s make sure nothing happens to them.

  • @JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    4910 months ago

    How much you wanna bet trump’s legal team leaks some of the court documents? The ones that ‘happen’ to name the jurors?

    • themeatbridge
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      If you’re asking why Trump wasn’t charged with sexual assault, it’s because the statute of limitations had run out. She was able to prove to a jury in civil court that there was a preponderance of evidence that he sexually assaulted her. His deposition was played for the jury but he did not attend the trial. In the deposition, he denied ever meeting the victim and called her crazy. She testified for two days, had corroborating witnesses, and photos of her with Trump proving they had met. Trump was shown the photo in his deposition and confused the victim for his wife at the time, Marla Maples.

      Two additional victims testified that he assaulted them in the same way, and they had the audio of the tape where Trump says he can grab women by the pussy.

      So Trump’s statements

      • He didn’t know her, never met her
      • He wouldn’t assault her because she’s ugly
      • He didn’t assault her, that’s a lie she made up

      Her evidence

      • Photo of them together
      • He thought she looked like his wife
      • Pattern of assault and private admissions that he assaults women

      It feels icky disproving that second one, but it just demonstrates that every statement is a proven lie.

      Would that be enough to convict him of sexual assault in New York? We won’t know that for sure, but we do know that Trump sexually assaults women.

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    English
    1010 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    At the end of the two-week trial, the jurors, who were purposefully made anonymous due to the high-profile nature of the case, are now free to identify themselves by name if they wish.

    After approximately three hours of deliberations, the jury ordered Mr Trump to pay $83.3m in damages to Ms Carroll after he repeatedly rejected her claim that he sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.

    The trial comes after a similar one last year where a jury found Mr Trump liable for sexually abusing Ms Carroll and defaming her.

    “I fully disagree with both verdicts and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party.

    THIS IS NOT AMERICA!” he claimed, despite there being no evidence that President Joe Biden has directed the Department of Justice to target Mr Trump.

    The trial lasted two weeks in a Manhattan federal court, during which Mr Trump’s attorneys aggressively litigated the case while the former president went after Ms Carroll during press conferences and on Truth Social, potentially defaming her further.


    The original article contains 432 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!