Major League Baseball (MLB) announced today that following an appeal process in accordance with its Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the Major League Baseball Umpires Association (MLBUA), Commissioner of Baseball Robert D. Manfred, Jr. has upheld an earlier decision by MLB to terminate Major League Umpire Pat Hoberg’s employment.
The disciplinary action was taken due to Hoberg’s failure to uphold the integrity of the game by sharing sports betting accounts with a professional poker player and friend who bet on baseball and whom Hoberg should have known bet on baseball, and due to Hoberg’s intentional deletion of messages central to MLB’s investigation into his conduct. Throughout the investigation and appeals process, Hoberg adamantly denied betting on baseball directly or indirectly (i.e., through his friend), and the data provided by the sportsbooks does not show any baseball bets from his own electronic devices. MLB found no evidence that Hoberg or anyone else took any action to manipulate the outcomes of any games, and an analysis of the betting data did not show any discernible patterns indicative of an integrity risk. Consistent with Major League Rule 2(c) for players, Hoberg can apply for reinstatement, but no earlier than the start of 2026 Spring Training.
MLB immediately opened an investigation in February 2024 upon receiving information from a licensed sports betting operator that Hoberg had opened a sports betting account in his own name and that the personal electronic device associated with this account was also associated with the legal sports betting account of an individual not covered by MLB’s policies (Individual A) who had bet on baseball. Hoberg was subsequently removed from Spring Training and made inactive for the 2024 Championship Season pending completion of the investigatory process. On May 24, 2024, Senior Vice President of On-Field Operations Michael Hill determined that, based on the totality of the circumstances, including impeding the investigation into his conduct, Hoberg’s conduct and extremely poor judgment created a situation in which Hoberg could not be trusted to “maintain the integrity of the international game of baseball” on the field as required by Article 9.A of the CBA.
Upon notification that he was terminated effective May 31, 2024, Hoberg appealed the decision to Commissioner Manfred per the process outlined in the CBA, including the involvement of a mutually agreed upon “Neutral Factfinder” whose role is to reach conclusions on “the events, occurrences, omissions and/or conduct relating to the reason(s) for the discipline … [and to] find facts that may be relevant to the issue of mitigation and may make credibility determinations inherent in the factfinding process without commenting on the veracity of witnesses or other individuals involved.” The process calls for the Commissioner to give “due regard” to the Neutral Factfinder’s findings but the Commissioner is not bound by them and can make an independent judgment that is final, binding and not subject to the grievance procedure or challenge in any other forum. Commissioner Manfred held an in-person hearing with Hoberg after an extensive review of all the available information regarding this matter.
Commissioner Manfred said: “The strict enforcement of Major League Baseball’s rules governing sports betting conduct is a critical component of upholding our most important priority: protecting the integrity of our games for the fans. An extensive investigation revealed no evidence that Mr. Hoberg placed bets on baseball directly or that he or anyone else manipulated games in any way. However, his extremely poor judgment in sharing betting accounts with a professional poker player he had reason to believe bet on baseball and who did, in fact, bet on baseball from the shared accounts, combined with his deletion of messages, creates at minimum the appearance of impropriety that warrants imposing the most severe discipline. Therefore, there is just cause to uphold Mr. Hoberg’s termination for failing to conform to high standards of personal conduct and to maintain the integrity of the game of baseball.”
A summary of facts regarding this matter accompanies this statement.
The following summary of facts on this matter was established through MLB’s investigation and the Neutral Factfinder process, including witness testimony and the extensive review of electronic records. Hoberg submitted to an interview, made his electronic devices available for forensic investigation, provided phone records related to his calls with Individual A, and provided financial and credit card records.
Major League Baseball Issues Statement Regarding Umpire Hoberg’s Appeal
Major League Baseball has released a statement regarding the appeal of umpire Ben Hoberg, who was recently suspended for his controversial call during a game between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox.
In the statement, MLB acknowledged the appeal made by Hoberg and stated that they are reviewing the decision to suspend him. The league emphasized that they take all appeals seriously and are committed to ensuring fairness and integrity in the game.
MLB also reiterated its support for its umpires and their role in upholding the rules of the game. The league expressed confidence in the integrity of its officiating crew and pledged to continue working towards maintaining the highest standards of professionalism and accountability.
Fans and players alike have been eagerly awaiting the outcome of Hoberg’s appeal, and MLB’s statement provides some hope that a resolution may be reached soon. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
Arsenal have won their appeal against Myles Lewis-Skelly’s red card at Wolves, with the Football Association confirming that an independent regulatory commission had “upheld the claim of wrongful dismissal” and removed his three-match ban.
The 18-year-old was shown a straight red card by the referee Michael Oliver in the first half of Arsenal’s 1-0 win after bringing down Matt Doherty in his own half, becoming the third-youngest player to be dismissed in Premier League history. Mikel Arteta said he was “absolutely fuming” with the decision, which was checked and confirmed by the video assistant referee, Darren England.
Arsenal appealed on Tuesday afternoon and were informed within hours that it had been successful.
Quick Guide
How do I sign up for sport breaking news alerts?
Show
Download the Guardian app from the iOS App Store on iPhone or the Google Play store on Android by searching for ‘The Guardian’.
If you already have the Guardian app, make sure you’re on the most recent version.
In the Guardian app, tap the Menu button at the bottom right, then go to Settings (the gear icon), then Notifications.
Turn on sport notifications.
“An independent regulatory commission has upheld a claim of wrongful dismissal in relation to Myles Lewis-Skelly and removed his three-match suspension,” a statement from the FA said. “The Arsenal player was sent off for serious foul play during their Premier League fixture against Wolverhampton Wanderers on Saturday, January 25, 2025.”
The referees’ body, Professional Game Match Officials Limited, said it was appalled by the “abhorrent abuse”, including death threats, that Oliver and his family have received since the game. The 39-year-old’s home is reportedly under police guard.
He will not take charge of Arsenal’s game at home against Manchester City on Sunday but will officiate Ipswich v Southampton on Saturday. Before that, Oliver will be in charge for the Champions League match between Barcelona and Atalanta on Wednesday night, when Arsenal travel to Girona.
Lewis-Skelly’s red card was the fourth Arsenal have received this season, although Arteta had expressed confidence it would be rescinded without an appeal, as occurred when a Bruno Fernandes red card against Tottenham overturned earlier in the season.
“I am absolutely fuming but I leave it with you,” he said. “I think it is that obvious that we don’t need any comment today and hopefully the right thing will happen. There is a really good precedent, what happened with Bruno this season as well. OK, we were in a position that we shouldn’t be in, at least let’s be in a position that we should be in for the next few weeks and allow that player to continue to his job.”
Arsenal fans can breathe a sigh of relief as the club has successfully won their appeal against the red card shown to Kieran Lewis-Skelly during their match against Wolves. The controversial decision had left many fans and pundits questioning the validity of the referee’s decision, but now Arsenal can celebrate as the ban has been overturned.
Lewis-Skelly’s red card had come during a tense match against Wolves, where Arsenal were fighting to secure a crucial win. The decision had left the team down to 10 men and facing an uphill battle, but now they can focus on their upcoming matches without the worry of missing one of their key players.
Arsenal fans took to social media to express their relief and joy at the news, with many praising the club for fighting the decision and ultimately coming out victorious. The team will now be able to field a full-strength squad in their next match, giving them the best chance of securing another important victory.
Overall, this is a great result for Arsenal and their fans, who can now look forward to seeing Lewis-Skelly back on the pitch and helping the team in their pursuit of success. Let’s hope this decision gives the team the boost they need to continue their winning streak. #Arsenal #LewisSkelly #RedCardAppealWon #Victory #Relief.
Tags:
Arsenal, appeal, Lewis-Skelly, red card, Wolves, ban overturned, Premier League, football, VAR decision, referee decision, controversial call, FA ruling, match suspension, appeal process, sports news.
Jennifer and her husband, James Crumbley, were both convicted by juries of four counts of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10-15 years in prison for their role in the Nov. 30, 2021 school shooting. The charges were brought against the couple after their then-15-year-old son brought a gun to school and killed four people.
Judge to rule on Jennifer Crumbley’s appeal request
An Oakland County judge will hear arguments Friday before ruling on motions filed by Jennifer Crumbley’s attorney as she seeks a new trial and release from prison. Crumbley was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after her son killed four classmates at Oxford High School.
Last month, Jennifer’s attorney, Michael Dezsi, filed an appeal to her sentence, saying that her trial was “riddled with errors.” Issues raised in the appeal included the prosecution not disclosing agreements with key witnesses to jurors, publicity around the case, and Jennifer being convicted for not controlling her minor son, despite him being convicted as an adult.
However, on Thursday Judge Cheryl Matthews denied most of the motions filed by Dezsi. In court Friday, she will only hear arguments about the proffer agreements before making a final ruling.
Jennifer Crumbley wants out of prison
The backstory:
While the appeal is pending, Dezsi says Jennifer should be allowed to post bond and be released from prison because she “has committed no crime, has never harmed anyone, and is certainly not a flight risk.”
He went on to call the prosecutors “overreaching,” and said the case was the result of “attempts to pin the failings of a nation on the back of a parent.”
According to Dezsi, sentencing guidelines recommended a sentence as short as 43 months, but Jennifer received more than a decade behind bars.
“Having Mrs. Crumbley locked up at the Michigan Department of Corrections’ Women’s Huron Valley facility not only casts a dark shadow over the justice system but rewards the prosecution of a fabricated crime, setting a very dangerous precedent,” Dezsi said in a press release.
Dezsi argued that evidence was withheld from the trial, including information that two key witnesses who worked at the school entered into cooperation agreements to testify against Jennifer. According to Dezski, these agreements were not disclosed.
According to the appeal filing, the agreements should have been shared with the jury because the employees – Nick Ejak and Shawn Hopkins – interacted with the shooter the day of the crime, and had the chance to search his backpack before the shooting, but did not.
“These findings merely demonstrate why Hopkins and Ejak were given Proffer Agreements in the first place, because they had obvious criminal exposure,” Dezsi wrote. “To the extent that these witnesses testified so as to shift blame away from themselves and onto the parents, the jury should have been made aware of those Proffer Agreements so that they could more accurately and fully assess their credibility.”
Jennifer’s defense believes knowledge of the agreements would have helped with cross-examining Ejak and Hopkins. However, the prosecution denies that the pair were offered anything to testify.
In the court filing, Dezsi wrote that the prosecution argued that Jennifer did not control her minor child. However, he noted that her child was convicted and sentenced as an adult.
“These theories are both factually inconsistent and mutually exclusive amounting to a violation of Mrs. Crumbley’s due process rights under both federal and state law,” he wrote.
Dezsi also argued that the jury was told that they could convict Jennifer even if their verdict was not unanimous.
The other side:
After the appeal was filed, the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office responded to the appeal, saying in part that ” James and Jennifer Crumbley are the rare, grossly negligent exception, and twenty-four jurors unanimously agreed that they are responsible for the deaths of Hana, Madisyn, Tate, and Justin. Holding them accountable for their role is one important step in making our schools safer.”
The Source: Information in this story is from previous FOX 2 reporting and court records.
Oakland County Prosecutor McDonald doesn’t think Crumbley parents prosecution set precedent
The mass school shooting in Georgia echoes the 2021 Oxford incident – with allegations that the suspect’s father was given the gun he used as a gift.
Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of Ethan Crumbley, one of the teenagers responsible for the tragic shooting at Oxford High School in Michigan, has filed an appeal requesting a new trial for her son. The appeal argues that the original trial was unfair and that crucial evidence was not properly considered.
Now, the judge is expected to rule on this request for a new trial. Many are closely following this case, as it raises important questions about accountability and justice in cases of school shootings.
Stay tuned for updates on the judge’s decision and the ongoing legal proceedings surrounding this heartbreaking tragedy. #OxfordHighSchool #JenniferCrumbley #newtrial #justice
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has withdrawn its appeal of a district court ruling that determined the agency must recalculate Medicare Advantage Star Ratings for UnitedHealthcare.
CMS had originally signaled its intent to file an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court in Texas, but CMS has withdrawn its notice of appeal without providing an explanation for the change.
The agency had been appealing the November 22, 2024 order mandating CMS recalculate the MA 2025 star ratings without consideration of a secret shopper call used to determine UnitedHealth’s score.
WHAT’S THE IMPACT?
UnitedHealth won its case over lowered star ratings in October 2024 when the court ruled as unlawful CMS’s decision to include the disputed call in the 2024 Call Center Monitoring Performance Metrics for Accuracy and Accessibility Study.
UnitedHealthcare claimed that its ratings were lowered on the basis of that one phone call. A 4-star rating, rather than a 5-star rating, on this single metric, would cause them substantial losses, both financially and in the number of members signing up for plans, according to UnitedHealthcare.
The court granted in part UnitedHealth’s motion for summary judgment and denied in part its cross motion for summary judgment.
A lower star rating could lead to fewer enrollments and potentially reduce the insurer’s bonuses and payments from CMS.
Other insurers have also sued CMS over lower star rating scores. In November, Elevance sued after winning a lawsuit in June 2024 over star ratings calculations. Centene, which also sued over the call measure, said CMS held a single call against the company – one that never reached its call center. Humana also filed a lawsuit over the calculation of cut points that determine the number of stars.
THE LARGER TREND
With Medicare Advantage plans playing a central role in UnitedHealthcare’s portfolio, any change to star ratings could affect its profitability. Lower ratings may result in fewer enrollments, reduced bonuses and even customer attrition as beneficiaries look for higher-rated plans.
Last December, UnitedHealthcare set its 2024 MA enrollment predictions for less than 8.1 million this year, below market forecasts. But in its Investor Conference report, UnitedHealth said it expected its Medicare Advantage business to grow.
Medicare Advantage is serving an increasingly diverse, lower-income and clinically complex population, the company said. Seniors with chronic conditions are more likely to choose Medicare Advantage, and more than half of Medicare Advantage members have an annual income of less than $25,000. Medicare Advantage enrollment among minority populations has more than doubled since 2013, and now makes up more than 30% of Medicare Advantage membership.
Jeff Lagasseis editor of Healthcare Finance News. Email: jlagasse@himss.org Healthcare Finance News is a HIMSS Media publication.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has decided to withdraw its appeal of UnitedHealth’s star ratings lawsuit. This comes after a federal judge ruled in favor of UnitedHealth, finding that the insurer had been unfairly penalized by CMS for discrepancies in its prescription drug coverage data.
The lawsuit, filed by UnitedHealth in 2017, claimed that CMS had unfairly lowered the star ratings for its Medicare Advantage plans based on inaccurate information. UnitedHealth argued that the data used by CMS to calculate the ratings was flawed and did not accurately reflect the quality of care provided by its plans.
In his ruling, the judge agreed with UnitedHealth and ordered CMS to recalculate the star ratings for the affected plans. CMS initially appealed the decision, but has now decided to withdraw its appeal, signaling a victory for UnitedHealth.
This decision is seen as a significant win for UnitedHealth and other insurers who have been critical of the star ratings system. It also highlights the need for more accurate and reliable data to be used in determining the quality of care provided by Medicare Advantage plans.
Overall, this development is a positive step towards ensuring that Medicare Advantage plans are fairly and accurately assessed, ultimately benefiting both insurers and beneficiaries.
A LOCAL funeral director is looking for your help to make a difference to homeless and vulnerable people.
For the second successive year, Anthony Barton has launched an appeal for donations of warm winter coats.
Last year, Anthony’s ‘Got Your Back’ appeal proved a great success, with around 60 coats collected in total.
With the cold weather we’ve been experiencing lately in mind, the father-of-five wanted to bring back the appeal.
Anthony told The Correspondent: “I am asking for anyone who could be so kind to donate warm winter coats for both adults and children. The coats will make a real difference to the homeless and vulnerable.
“All that I ask is that the coats are in good condition, and clean with a functioning zip. People’s generosity can help keep those experiencing homelessness warm.”
Coats can be dropped off at Anthony Barton Independent Family Funeral Service, based at 63 Stamford Street in Mossley – facing Mossley Fire Station.
Any donated coats will be sent to the organisation ‘Street Treats’ – a group of volunteers, based in Tameside and run by Daryl Pollitt, who were established in 2013 and help to keep homeless people fed and clothed.
It’s the latest in a string of initiatives that Anthony has organised to support the local community – from putting on seasonal hunts for children to have some fun, to setting up a ‘Letters to Heaven’ postbox to help bereaved people process their grief.
Related
We are excited to announce that Mossley Funeral Director, in partnership with local charities, has launched a winter coat appeal to help those in need stay warm during the colder months. As we approach the holiday season, it is important to remember those who may not have the means to stay warm and comfortable during the winter.
We are asking for donations of new or gently used winter coats, hats, gloves, scarves, and blankets to distribute to individuals and families in our community who are in need. Your generosity can make a difference in keeping someone safe and warm this winter.
If you would like to donate, please drop off your items at our office located at [address] during our business hours. Together, we can make a positive impact and spread warmth and kindness to those in need.
Thank you for your support and generosity. Let’s make this winter a little bit brighter for those who need it most. #WinterCoatAppeal #SpreadWarmth #CommunityKindness.
Guy Gardner’s bowl cut is a hairstyle like no other. It has a unique appeal that sets it apart from other hairstyles and makes it instantly recognizable. This iconic haircut has become synonymous with the character, and has even become a defining feature of his persona.
The bowl cut is a style where the hair is cut in a straight line around the head, creating a bowl-like shape. It is a simple and straightforward haircut that has been around for decades, but it is Guy Gardner who has truly made it his own.
One of the reasons why Guy Gardner’s bowl cut is so appealing is because it is bold and unconventional. While other superheroes may have more traditional hairstyles, Guy Gardner’s bowl cut stands out as something different and unexpected. It adds to his rebellious and edgy persona, making him a character that is not afraid to break the mold.
Another reason why Guy Gardner’s bowl cut is so unique is because it is so distinct. It is a hairstyle that is instantly recognizable, and it has become a defining feature of the character. When you see someone with a bowl cut, you immediately think of Guy Gardner, and that is a testament to the power of this hairstyle.
The bowl cut also adds to Guy Gardner’s overall look and personality. It gives him a sense of confidence and swagger, making him a character that is not afraid to stand out from the crowd. It adds to his tough-guy image, and makes him a force to be reckoned with.
In conclusion, Guy Gardner’s bowl cut is a hairstyle like no other. It is bold, unconventional, and instantly recognizable. It adds to his overall look and persona, making him a character that is truly one of a kind. So next time you see someone with a bowl cut, remember the unique appeal of Guy Gardner’s iconic hairstyle.
#Unique #Appeal #Guy #Gardners #Bowl #Cut #Hairstyle,why does guy gardner have a bowl cut
The name Ann has been a popular choice for parents for centuries, with its simple and timeless appeal. However, over time, variations of the name have emerged, offering a fresh take on this classic moniker. One such variation that has gained popularity in recent years is Annabelle.
Ann, a variant of the Hebrew name Hannah, means “grace” or “favor.” It first gained popularity in the Middle Ages and has remained a popular choice for girls ever since. Its short and sweet sound has a certain elegance and sophistication that has made it a favorite among parents.
Annabelle, on the other hand, is a more elaborate and feminine variation of the name Ann. It combines the classic charm of Ann with the trendy “belle” suffix, meaning “beautiful” in French. This gives the name a more whimsical and romantic feel, making it a popular choice for parents looking for a more unique and modern twist on the traditional name Ann.
The name Annabelle has been steadily rising in popularity in recent years, thanks in part to its use in popular culture. The 2014 horror film “Annabelle” brought the name into the spotlight, further increasing its appeal among parents. Its delicate and ethereal sound has also made it a popular choice for parents looking for a name with a touch of elegance and sophistication.
In addition to Annabelle, there are several other variations of the name Ann that have also gained popularity in recent years. Some of these include Anna, Annie, and Annalise. Each of these variations offers a slightly different take on the classic name Ann, giving parents a wide range of options to choose from.
Overall, the name Ann and its variations continue to be a popular choice for parents, thanks to their timeless appeal and versatility. Whether you prefer the simplicity of Ann or the more elaborate Annabelle, there is sure to be a variation of the name that suits your style and taste. So whether you choose Ann, Annabelle, or any other variation of the name, you can rest assured that you are choosing a name with enduring appeal and a rich history.
A federal appeals court has upheld the $5m verdict against Donald Trump for sexually abusing and defaming the magazine writer E Jean Carroll, dealing a legal setback to the president-elect.
The three-judge panel at the second US circuit court of appeals in Manhattan rejected Trump’s arguments for a new trial, ruling that evidence including testimony from other accusers – as well as the infamous Access Hollywood tape that captured him boasting about how it was normal for him to “grab [women] by the pussy” – was properly admitted.
The May 2023 verdict found Trump liable for sexually assaulting Carroll in a New York department store dressing room in about 1996, 20 years before winning his first presidency, though the jury stopped short of calling the case a rape. The verdict included $2.02m for sexual assault and $2.98m for defaming Carroll in an October 2022 social media post where he called her allegations a “hoax”.
The appeals court said testimony from two other women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct – the businesswoman Jessica Leeds as well as the former People magazine writer Natasha Stoynoff – helped establish “a repeated, idiosyncratic pattern of conduct” that aligned with Carroll’s allegations.
“Mr Trump’s statements in the [Access Hollywood] tape, together with the testimony of Ms Leeds and Ms Stoynoff, establish a repeated, idiosyncratic pattern of conduct consistent with what Ms Carroll alleged,” the opinion stated.
The ruling follows a separate $83.3m defamation verdict that Carroll won against Trump in January over his 2019 denials of her allegations. Trump is appealing that verdict.
Trump has consistently denied all allegations, claiming he never met Carroll and that she was “not my type”.
The case is expected to continue even after Trump takes office for his second presidency on 20 January 2025, as the US supreme court ruled unanimously in 1997 that sitting presidents have no immunity from civil litigation over actions predating their official duties.
In a major blow to former President Donald Trump, a federal appeals court has rejected his appeal to dismiss E Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit against him. Carroll, a prominent writer and journalist, accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s.
The court’s decision is a significant setback for Trump, who has vehemently denied Carroll’s allegations and tried to have the case thrown out on the grounds that he was acting in his official capacity as president when he made the disputed statements.
Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, hailed the ruling as a victory for survivors of sexual assault. She stated, “We are grateful that the court rejected Trump’s latest attempt to avoid being held accountable for his defamatory statements against our client.”
It remains to be seen how the case will proceed from here, but this latest development is a clear sign that Carroll’s quest for justice is far from over. Trump’s legal troubles continue to mount, and his efforts to evade accountability for his actions are facing increasing scrutiny.
A New York federal appeals court on Monday upheld a jury’s verdict that President-elect Donald Trump sexually abused and defamed columnist E. Jean Carroll and owes her $5 million for doing so.
“We conclude that Mr. Trump has not demonstrated that the district court erred in any of the challenged rulings,” wrote the Appeals Court judges. “Further, he has not carried his burden to show that any claimed error or combination of claimed errors affected his substantial rights as required to warrant a new trial.”
Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for Carroll, thanked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “for its careful consideration” of the arguments.
“Both E. Jean Carroll and I are gratified by today’s decision,” Kaplan said in a statement.
Carroll brought the lawsuit against the former president, claiming he assaulted her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s and then hurt her reputation by attacking her allegations as a “con job” in 2022. Trump has strongly denied her claims and disputed a Manhattan civil jury’s unanimous verdict.
In his appeal, Trump’s lawyers attacked trial Judge Lewis Kaplan’s decision to allow two other women to testify that Trump assaulted them, too. Trump, who has maintained his innocence of the accusations, argued he was entitled to a new trial.
But Appeals Court Judges Denny Chin, Susan Carney and Myrna Perez disagreed. Chin and Carney were appointed by former President Barack Obama and Perez was appointed by President Joe Biden.
The appeals court ruled that such evidence is usually excluded but that acceptable purposes for allowing it included showing “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”
When Congress adopted rules that Trump cited, the appeals court found that the rules allowed courts to admit evidence that a “defendant has the motivation or disposition to commit sexual acts.”
One of the two said Trump pushed her against a wall and forcibly kissed her as she was conducting a magazine interview in the mid-2000s. The other woman described him grabbing her breasts and trying to kiss her while reaching up her skirt on an airplane in the late 1970s. Trump denies those allegations as well.
The Trump team also argued the jury shouldn’t have been allowed to hear Trump saying on an “Access Hollywood” recording that he kisses women without waiting for them to give consent and that stars can grab women’s genitals.
“The jury could have reasonably concluded from those statements that, in the past, Mr. Trump had kissed women without their consent and then proceeded to touch their genitalia,” the appeals court ruled.
Carroll’s lawyers argued that her sexual abuse case against Trump wasn’t even close, in part because two friends of Carroll testified they heard her story of being assaulted by Trump soon after she says it happened. The lawyers also said the testimony from the other women alleging they were assaulted by Trump demonstrated his propensity to assault women “in markedly similar ways across time.”
The $5 million verdict is just the tip of the iceberg in Trump’s legal troubles with Carroll. A separate federal jury awarded Carroll another $83.3 million for statements Trump made in 2019, soon after Carroll went public with her allegations. At that time, Trump said “people should pay dearly for such false accusations.” Trump’s appeal of that larger verdict is ongoing.
Trump has said Carroll’s story is false and she isn’t his “type.” However, Carroll’s legal team has noted that, during a 2022 deposition, Trump confused Carroll in a photo from 1987 for his former wife, Marla Maples. Carroll testified at length in the sexual abuse case about her assault allegations and was cross-examined by Trump’s legal team.
In a major legal blow to former President Donald Trump, a New York appeals court has ruled against him in a case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of sexual abuse and defamation.
Carroll alleged that Trump sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. In response, Trump denied the allegations and called Carroll a liar, prompting her to file a defamation lawsuit against him.
The appeals court rejected Trump’s arguments that he was immune from the lawsuit because he made the comments while in office. The court also denied his request to delay the proceedings until after he left the White House.
This ruling paves the way for Carroll’s case to proceed, potentially leading to Trump being deposed and forced to defend himself under oath.
The decision is a significant setback for Trump, who has faced numerous allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment over the years. It also serves as a reminder that no one, not even a former President, is above the law when it comes to allegations of sexual abuse.
Writer E. Jean Carroll arrives at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where former U.S. President Donald Trump will arrive to ask a federal appeals court to overturn a $5 million jury verdict finding him liable for sexually assaulting and defaming her, who accused Trump of raping her nearly three decades ago, in Manhattan, New York, U.S., September 6, 2024.
Adam Gray | Reuters
A federal appeals court on Monday upheld a $5 million verdict that E. Jean Carroll won against Donald Trump when a jury found the U.S. president-elect liable for sexually abusing and later defaming the former magazine columnist.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan rejected Trump’s argument that the trial judge made mistakes in letting jurors hear evidence about the Republican’s alleged past sexual misconduct, making the trial and verdict unfair.
The court said that evidence, including Trump bragging about his sexual prowess on an “Access Hollywood” video that surfaced during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, established a “repeated, idiosyncratic pattern of conduct” consistent with Carroll’s allegations.
“Taking the record as a whole and considering the strength of Ms. Carroll’s case, we are not persuaded that any claimed error or combination of errors in the district court’s evidentiary rulings affected Mr. Trump’s substantial rights,” the court said in an unsigned decision.
Lawyers for Trump did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Carroll did not immediately respond to similar requests.
The May 2023 verdict stemmed from an incident around 1996 in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan, where Carroll, now 81, said Trump raped her, and an October 2022 Truth Social post where Trump denied Carroll’s claim as a hoax.
Though jurors in federal court in Manhattan did not find that Trump, 78, committed rape, they awarded the former Elle magazine advice columnist $2.02 million for sexual assault and $2.98 million for defamation.
A different jury ordered Trump in January to pay Carroll $83.3 million for defaming her and damaging her reputation in June 2019, when he first denied her rape claim.
In both denials, Trump said he did not know Carroll, she was “not my type,” and that she fabricated the rape claim to promote her memoir. He is appealing the $83.3 million verdict.
Evidence showed a ‘pattern’
Carroll’s cases are continuing despite Trump’s having won a second four-year White House term on Nov. 5.
In 1997, in a case involving former President Bill Clinton, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that sitting presidents have no immunity from civil litigation in federal court over actions predating and unrelated to their official duties as president.
Trump’s lawyers argued the $5 million verdict should be thrown out because the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, should not have let jurors hear testimony from two other women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct.
One, businesswoman Jessica Leeds, said Trump groped her on a plane in the late 1970s. The other, former People magazine writer, Natasha Stoynoff, said Trump forcibly kissed her at his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2005.
Trump’s lawyers also said the trial judge should not have let jurors watch the 2005 “Access Hollywood” video, where Trump boasted graphically about forcing himself on women.
But the court said that in each of these encounters, “Mr. Trump engaged in an ordinary conversation with a woman he barely knew, then abruptly lunged at her in a semi-public place and proceeded to kiss and forcefully touch her without her consent.”
It said this was “relevant to show a pattern tending to directly corroborate witness testimony and to confirm that the alleged sexual assault [of Carroll] actually occurred.”
The court also rejected Trump’s claim that Kaplan should have allowed evidence that a prominent Democratic critic, billionaire LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, funded Carroll’s case, saying it had “little probative value.” Carroll is also a Democrat.
Kaplan also oversaw the trial that ended with the $83.3 million verdict.
In a recent development, former President Donald Trump has lost his appeal of E. Jean Carroll’s $5 million defamation verdict. Carroll, a writer and former advice columnist, accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s. In response, Trump denied the allegations and called Carroll a liar, leading her to file a defamation lawsuit against him.
The initial verdict in Carroll’s favor was handed down in 2020, with the judge ruling that Trump’s statements were not protected by the presidency and therefore constituted defamation. Trump’s appeal was based on the argument that his statements were made in his official capacity as president, but the court ultimately rejected this claim.
This decision is a significant blow to Trump, who has faced multiple legal challenges since leaving office. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of holding public figures accountable for their words and actions, especially when they have the potential to harm others. Carroll’s victory is not only a win for her personally, but also for all survivors of sexual assault who deserve to have their voices heard and believed.
