• @JesusSon
    link
    English
    16
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    “As the court explained in its recent decision denying Mr Trump’s motion for a new trial on damages and other relief [in the New York case] … based on all of the evidence at trial and the jury’s verdict as a whole, the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr. Trump, in fact, did ‘rape’ Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law.” - Lewis A. Kaplan: Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

      • @FanciestPants
        link
        English
        53 days ago

        Pretty much, except it may be more appropriate to replace “implies” with “determined there was sufficient evidence to conclude”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13 days ago

          Listen, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not trying to say I am.

          It’s widely understood that civil litigation is held to a lower level of scrutiny than criminal proceedings are.

          It’s widely accepted that jury trials are more prone to error than other types of hearings.

          The legal meaning of the word “implicit” in that sentence is something close to “we didn’t ask the jury about this, but something they did rule on could be interpreted as implying it”.

          I’m not making an excuse for trump or normalizing rape when I say the following:

          That is paper fucking thin.