Donald Trump Testimony 'Went Better Than Expected'—Attorney

Former President Donald Trump's testimony in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case was better than expected, a former federal prosecutor has said.

Writing in her Civil Discourse blog on Friday, Joyce Vance said that Judge Lewis Kaplan prevented Trump from ranting on the witness stand, which may have worked in the former president's favor.

"Trump seemed determined to testify. From his lawyers' point of view, it probably went better than expected. Trump did not rant, rave, or explode on the witness stand," she wrote.

Vance, who is a frequent critic of Trump, said that his lack of ranting was, in part, "because the judge was quick to jump in and cut Trump off when he went beyond the scope of what was permitted, promptly instructing the jury to ignore it."

She wrote that Trump's testimony on Thursday was "largely a non-event."

"It's unlikely that it will exert much influence on the jury either way," she wrote. "They heard Trump blurt out his denial of Carroll's accusation, but they already knew he denied them. Carroll's lawyers played tapes of Trump saying they weren't true, including some statements he made while the trial was ongoing. They will use that to argue for punitive damages in an amount high enough to make him stop."

The trial's closing arguments are expected to take place on Friday.

In May 2023, Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages after a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming the former Elle columnist. The former president has denied sexually assaulting her at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in New York in the 1990s.

Carroll's lawyers are now seeking another $10 million in compensatory damages and "substantially more" after the former president continued to deny the accusations that he assaulted her, claiming he had no idea who she is and that Carroll was not his "type." In May, Trump called Carroll's account "fake" and labeled her a "whack job" during a CNN town hall broadcast. In early September, Judge Kaplan ruled that Trump's comments against Carroll were defamatory.

Newsweek sought email comment from Trump's attorney Alina Habba on Friday.

In her blog, Vance also explained why Habba took such a careful approach when questioning Trump on Thursday.

"When judges talk to juries about awarding punitive damages, they say something along the lines of: You may award punitive damages only if you find that the defendant's conduct that harmed the plaintiff was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights," Vance wrote. "Conduct is malicious if it is accompanied by ill will or spite, or if it is for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff. That's why Trump lawyer Alina Habba asked him whether he had intended to hurt Ms. Carroll with his statements.

"When Habba asked him the question, Trump replied: 'No. I just wanted to defend myself, my family and, frankly, the presidency.'

"That 'No' will form the basis of Trump's argument to the jury that he wasn't acting maliciously against Carroll so they shouldn't award punitive damages, at least not in an enormous amount."