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.

10 points

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!

permalink
report
reply
116 points

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.”

permalink
report
reply
38 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

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

I’m guessing… all of them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

(We might not actually help you)

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

What are the chances someone at the court office leaks the list?

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Pretty low. Most of those people respect the court regardless of any political affiliation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
115 points
*

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…

permalink
report
reply
4 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

Wow, trump is such a fucking loser.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

It’s called the art of the deal, okay!!! 😤

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

More like the “Fart of the Deal”

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The shart is for real.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The art of the steal.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 450K

    Comments