In the defamation lawsuit filed by writer E. Jean Carroll against Donald Trump, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan has ruled that certain evidence planned by Trump's legal team is "irrelevant" to the case and cannot be presented during the civil trial.

The judge specifically disallowed the introduction of an interview Carroll did with CNN's Anderson Cooper in 2019 and any attempt to suggest that Carroll sought media attention to boost book sales, aiming to discredit her.

Donald Trump's Evidence Against Ms Carrol Tossed Out of Court by Judge https://t.co/9R5kPdQWyT

— Komatsu (@DarkWebWarrior) January 15, 2024

The case

Carroll, a former Elle columnist, is suing Trump for defamation over his denial of sexually assaulting her in a New York department store dressing room in the 1990s.

Trump's statements included remarks such as "she's not my type" and alleging that Carroll fabricated the attack to sell copies of her book. The defamation case, ruled in favor of Carroll in September 2023, will determine damages.

This lawsuit is distinct from another filed by Carroll, involving sexual battery and defamation, where a jury found Trump liable for abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million in damages in May 2023.

The attacks

Ahead of the civil trial, Judge Kaplan barred Trump's lawyers from arguing that he did not sexually assault Carroll, deeming it irrelevant to the defamation case.

Carroll's lawyers accused Trump's legal team of attempting to "circumvent" the ruling by introducing evidence to prejudice her character.

This included a 2019 CNN interview where Carroll discussed perceptions of rape, misconstrued by Trump to suggest she enjoyed being assaulted.

The judge's ruling

Judge Kaplan ruled that the interview is inadmissible, emphasizing the trial's focus on damages resulting from Trump's defamatory statements in June 2019.

"This trial is limited to the issue of damages sustained as a result of the defendant's June 21 and 22, 2019 statements. Those statements already have been determined to have been false, defamatory, and made with constitutional actual malice," Kaplan wrote.

The judge also rejected evidence related to Carroll's media appearances to promote her 2019 book, stating it was not probative of the damage caused by Trump's defamatory statements.

The trial aims to determine the extent of damages resulting from Trump's remarks, previously determined to be false, defamatory, and made with constitutional actual malice.