The headlines were everywhere, but the fine print was confusing. Honestly, it’s one of those legal stories where the shorthand people use on social media doesn’t quite match the specific boxes checked by a jury in a Manhattan courtroom. You’ve probably seen the back-and-forth: one side says he’s a "convicted rapist," the other says he was "exonerated" of the worst charges. Neither is technically right.
In May 2023, a jury of six men and three women sat in a federal court and decided the fate of a civil lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. She claimed that in the mid-1990s, Donald Trump cornered her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room and attacked her.
The jury’s decision? They found that trump found liable for rape in the way most of the world understands the word, even if the New York legal code at the time was incredibly narrow.
The Verdict That Split Hairs
Let’s get into the weeds of why this is so confusing. In New York, at the time of the trial, "rape" had a very specific, technical definition in the penal code. It required proof of "forcible penetration by a penis."
During the trial, the jury had to answer a specific set of questions on a verdict sheet. When they got to the question of whether Trump raped Carroll according to that exact, technical definition, they checked "No."
But—and this is the huge part—they checked "Yes" for sexual abuse.
They found it more likely than not that Trump forcibly penetrated Carroll with his fingers. For the jury, the evidence of that specific act was clear. Because of this, they awarded her $5 million in damages for the assault and the defamation that followed.
Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the case, didn't let the technicality slide when Trump’s lawyers later tried to claim he had been cleared of "rape." The judge was blunt. He wrote that the jury’s finding of sexual abuse meant they believed Trump had "raped" her in the "common modern parlance." Basically, the judge said that if you forcibly penetrate someone against their will, the world calls that rape, even if the New York law books hadn't caught up to the dictionary yet.
Why It Was a Civil Case, Not Criminal
You’ll often hear people argue that he wasn’t "guilty." That’s actually a fair point of law, but not in the way some people think.
This wasn't a criminal trial. There was no jail time on the line. No handcuffs.
Because the incident happened in the 90s, the statute of limitations for a criminal case had long since expired. Carroll was able to sue only because New York passed the Adult Survivors Act. It was a one-year window that allowed survivors of old sexual assaults to file civil lawsuits.
In a civil case, the "burden of proof" is lower. In a criminal trial, you need "beyond a reasonable doubt"—roughly 98% or 99% certainty. In a civil trial, you only need a preponderance of the evidence. Think of it as 51%. The jury just has to believe it’s more likely than not that the event happened.
And they did.
They listened to Carroll’s testimony. They heard from two of her friends who said she told them about the attack right after it happened. They even watched the infamous Access Hollywood tape where Trump talked about grabbing women.
Trump himself never showed up to testify. He did a deposition on video, though. In that video, he famously mistook a photo of E. Jean Carroll for his ex-wife, Marla Maples. That mistake likely didn't help his defense that she "wasn't his type."
The $83 Million Aftermath
The story didn't end with that first $5 million. Because Trump kept attacking Carroll on the campaign trail and on social media, she sued him again.
This second trial in early 2024 was wild. Since the first jury had already decided that the assault happened, this new jury wasn't there to decide "if" he did it. That was already settled law. They were only there to decide how much money he should pay for continuing to call her a liar.
The bill was steep.
🔗 Read more: Why the WITI Fox 6 News Team Still Wins the Milwaukee Morning Ratings War
$83.3 million.
The jury wanted to send a message that was loud enough to make him stop. It was a staggering amount of money, mostly made up of punitive damages.
What This Means for the Future
It’s easy to get lost in the political noise. But looking at the legal reality, here is where things actually stand.
- The "Rape" Label: While the jury didn't find "rape" under the old NY Penal Law § 130.35, the court has ruled that calling Trump a rapist is "substantially true" based on the jury's findings of forcible digital penetration.
- The Appeals: Trump has been fighting these verdicts in higher courts. His legal team has argued that the evidence shouldn't have been allowed and that the damages were way too high.
- The Precedent: This case showed that even decades-old allegations can result in massive legal consequences if a state opens a legislative window like the Adult Survivors Act.
If you are trying to stay informed on this, the best thing you can do is look at the verdict sheets and the judge’s memos rather than just cable news clips. The legal distinction between "sexual abuse" and "rape" in this case is a masterclass in how technicalities work—and how they sometimes fail to shield people from the common-sense interpretation of their actions.
To get a full picture of the current status of these cases, you should keep an eye on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dockets. That is where the battle over the $83 million and the original liability is currently being fought. Understanding the difference between "liable" and "guilty" is the first step in cutting through the partisan spin that usually surrounds these trials. After all, the court records tell a much more specific story than the campaign speeches do.