Guilty, but it won’t matter

Trump was found guilty of sexual assault on E. Jean Carroll, but keep in mind that this was a civil trial, not a criminal case, so he can’t be punished with jail time, only a fine. A $5 million fine. It will do nothing.

  • Trump won’t pay it. If we know anything of the man, it’s that he doesn’t pay his debts.
  • His audience of gullible authoritarian morons won’t care.

  • He’s going to continue his run for the presidency.

  • The media will continue to treat him as a serious politician, and court his approval.

It’s a moral victory, but Republicans don’t care about morality.


  1. bcw bcw says

    Also, to appeal, you have to put up a bond for the full amount first.

  2. stuffin says

    Trump’s biggest asset is his manipulation of the media.

    Trump equals headlines, headlines equal readers/watchers and readers/watchers equal money. We are stuck with this corrupt destructive man.

  3. Tethys says

    Nothing as trivial as reality matters to a narcissist in full gaslighting mode. I’m sure he will attempt to get out of paying that judgement, but the various judges involved appear to be thoroughly done with his attempts to remain unaccountable to the laws.

    It matters to normal humans that their head of state is not a rapist, and this conviction is hopefully the first of many.

  4. robro says

    stuffing @ #3 — “We are stuck with this corrupt destructive man.” Or someone of his ilk.

    Speaking of which, looks like George Santos will get his day in court.

  5. grandolddeity says

    The rape count floundered (according to an account on MSNBC) due to testimony that EJC said she could not see if DJT had penetrated her with his penis. He had his fingers in her, but without seeing for sure she couldn’t tell if he swapped. I can’t wait for that one to catch on.

  6. says

    Of course he’s having an ALL CAPS meltdown on fake Twitter, claiming he doesn’t know the woman.
    I guess he’s saying he only assaults women he knows. And that are his “type.”
    And the fact that he wasn’t found liable for actual rape will be spun into “found innocent” by his slobbering sycophants.
    I really do hate that man.

  7. acroyear says

    He never pays any debt in full. He sets up a payment plan to look like he’s conforming, then at some point he just…stops paying. He’s then sued for it, pulls all the same delaying and stalling tactics, and appeal after appeal until the plaintiffs just give up because they need the money more than the stress and end up settling for a fraction of the remaining bill.

    He’s treated his contractors like this for decades, in Florida, New York, New Jersey, Trump Hotel in DC. Pretty much the only properties he can’t do that for are in foreign countries that have laws that don’t allow for that crap because the state has the right to just seize the property in such cases without appeal…but even there, he’s pushed to limits, like in St. Andrews, Scotland.

    So expect more of the same. He won’t pay, he’ll get sued, and it will become yet another wave of appeals and stalling tactics to eventually wear her and her lawyers down.

    Might not work this time. She had a very generous patron backing her legal costs who likely will continue to support.

  8. says

    If it turns even a few “conservatives” from him, that helps end his political career. There will still be a lot of shouting. But that’s what a society gets when they promote a dangerous sociopath.

  9. timmyson says

    Can you garnish Presidential wages, on the — ungods forbid — chance that he wins the presidency again

  10. timmyson says

    Can you garnish Presidential wages, on the — ungods forbid — chance that he wins the presidency again

  11. says

    When Trump says “I don’t know that person” he means they didn’t register as real to him. Sociopaths are like that – the world to them is like a computer game and everyone is an NPC.

    Capitalism and corporatocracy promotes people like Trump. He’s everyman’s shitty boss, and he ran for office and millions of Americans said “Yeah! That one!”

    It’s a humiliating realization to watch the English crown a slobbering twit, and to realize that at least they didn’t choose him.

  12. silvrhalide says

    @10 You can garnish anyone’s wages. The problem is that Trump’s income comes from assets not wages. You can sometimes force the sale of assets but you can’t garnish them generally because the income from them isn’t necessarily steady.

    @7 You and me both.Why can’t he just die in a trash fire or finally, FINALLY have that massive myocardial infarction or pulmonary thrombosis from eating all those goddamn Big Macs? How is this orange blimp even still alive?

    @6 Well, EJC is a writer and a fairly good one too. (Not All The President’s Men good, but she certainly makes a living at it.) I’m hoping for an excoriating book from her about POTUS Baby Hands (and penis.)
    Can’t wait for the late night hosts & other comedians to have a field day with “I couldn’t tell the difference between his tiny baby hands and his tiny baby penis”. As much as I support the WGA strike, you have to admit, the timing is terrible.

    Maybe Hannibal Burress or Daniel Sloss will do a comedy special or a tour.

  13. wzrd1 says

    Trump won’t pay it. If we know anything of the man, it’s that he doesn’t pay his debts.

    He can try, the federal courts don’t play around and will happily seize the award equivalent in the jurist’s view (typically higher) in assets and award them to the plaintiff.
    I’d suggest to the jurist awarding ownership of Mar-a-Lago to the plaintiff the moment he attempts to default.
    Just so she can then evict him on short notice.

  14. larpar says

    “The media will continue to treat him as a serious politician, and court his approval.”
    CNN is giving him a national prime time platform tomorrow night.
    My only hope is that the moderator says “that’s a lie” every time Trump opens his mouth.
    I have no hope.

  15. silvrhalide says


    “The media will continue to treat him as a serious politician, and court his approval.”

    Forget the media, half the country will continue to lap up his BS like it was sugar.
    And claim he was framed. Or it was a hoax.
    And they will call EJC a liar and a whore who secretly wanted it to happen.
    Even after the red state death rate from Covid 19 being twice the blue state death rate, people will still not kick this shitbrindle orange turd to the curb.

  16. says

    First the snark: So the testimony was that she couldn’t tell if it was his finger or his penis,† and we’ve seen the size of his hands, so that implies that his yuuuuuuuuuuuuuge bluster is compensating for something that’s small…

    More seriously, the split verdict actually further insulates this particular verdict from appellate attack. It’s always hard to attack a jury’s findings of fact, but the particular split here indicates clearly that the jury was carefully considering nuances in the evidence. We don’t have to agree with their decision; on the other hand, we haven’t seen all of the evidence in the way that they did, either — and these are always as much about credibility issues that aren’t apparent from any transcript as anything else. As a hypothetical example — that didn’t happen here — pretend that The Donald had been in the courtroom, seated at the defense table, when Ms Carroll was testifying. The jury would have at minimum glanced over at him a few times to see his reaction, and drawn some inferences from it. None of that would ever make its way to the transcript. And the particular split here did not result in an inconsistent verdict (found liable for rape but not criminal sexual conduct would have been inconsistent, possibly leading the judge to issue judgment notwithstanding the verdict).

    So what happens next? A variety of posttrial motions due in the next two weeks, including one for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (also called judgment as a matter of law, and sometimes abbreviated jnov = judgment non obstante veredicto), asking Judge Kaplan — a rather old-school jurist — to substitute his judgment for the jury. This is an incredible longshot in any civil trial, but it’s a necessary step in preserving some things for appeal. Then will come an appeal, to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (which is in the same building as this trial). At least in theory, this appeals can be only regarding errors of law, unless the defendant also made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. And no bond need be posted until the appeal is filed, which must follow within 30 days of final resolution of those posttrial motions (if those motions include a jnov motion; otherwise, the clock runs from the date Judge Kaplan enters final judgment on the verdict, usually two or three court days after the due date for the posttrial motions).

    Estimated cost to both sides for an appeal: $300,000 in attorney’s fees. Taking that to the Supreme Court will add a minimum of $300,000 for each side even if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case. (Just printing the briefs as required costs $15,000 or so.) And all of that will come out of any judgment eventually paid to Ms Carroll — there’s no “loser pays” fee-shifting here.‡

    † This is not the New York law at present, nor was it the law in the majority of jurisdictions even then. However, this trial had to be based upon fulfilling the definitions in force, in New York, at the time of the attack. Which were being criticized a decade before that for being much more stringent in defining the element of rape than even purportedly behind-the-times military law.

    ‡ Far be it for me to suggest that sometimes losers file borderline-frivolous appeals out of spite to run up the other side’s expenses and reduce the amount that will actually go to the client. I’ve only seen that a dozen times or so. Personally. When it was unmistakeable, and personal, and not just “insurer shenanigans.”

  17. wzrd1 says

    Jaws, at least New York does have vexatious litigant statutes in place, from what I gathered on a quick look, even for appeals. Trump could easily land on that shit list and screw himself in future litigation.

  18. StevoR says


    Is Trump sick of all his legal winning losing yet I wonder?

    Not that he can or will stop.

    @ silvrhalide :

    Why can’t he just die in a trash fire or finally, FINALLY have that massive myocardial infarction or pulmonary thrombosis from eating all those goddamn Big Macs? How is this orange blimp even still alive?

    Why isn’t he already in jail? But yes, also that. Why hasn’t he died in jail?

  19. StevoR says

    Also this highlights again how our legal system fails at the criminal level where known rapists like Trump (who, reminder, actually publicly boasted of getting away with – at least – sexual assualt because of his fame before he was elected) can lose in Civil court yet not be convicted criminally. Time to look at changing laws and the legal criminal system procedures and Judges to favour survivors of rape rather than perpetrators I’d say.

    Oh & Aussie ABC news piece here :


  20. wzrd1 says

    StevoR, one issue is, the civil law statues have different or even no statute of limitations to time out, as opposed to criminal law statutes, which can. Then, to make things merrier, consider that each state has its own laws.
    Europeans get extremely confused at that, as they largely have strong central governments and weak provincial and local governments, whereas we do the opposite.

  21. S maltophilia says

    Sounds like it’s good for $10M in fundraising. Even after paying off the lawyers (if he does), the maggates
    provide tfg with a tidy profit.

  22. HidariMak says

    During one of the debates for the 2016 presidency, the president-reject paid to have some of the woman who claimed sexual assault by Bill Clinton to be present. Here’s hoping that, in the highly unlikely chance* that Dolt 45 succeeds in being the Republican candidate, “Dark Brandon” does something similar for his own opponent.
    * While constantly being in the news is often good for the polls, being in the news as the defendant in multiple state and federal cases will likely hurt him. And one thing that was learned only 6 months ago, is that you can’t win the primary without Trump, and you can’t win the general with Trump.

  23. says


    I hold out little hope. There’s a significant First Amendment barrier to treating anyone involved in a defamation matter as a “vexatious litigant” in any matter but that one. And that’s before considering courts’ reluctance to treat any defendant as a vexatious litigant because, at least in theory, a defendant didn’t start it.

    Keep in mind, too, that this is in federal court (even though they are New York state-law causes of action), so New York statutes on “vexatious litigation” don’t apply; indeed, the New York statute pretends that cases in courts other than the courts of the State of New York don’t exist. Instead, the federal court would look to control his lawyers (28 U.S.C. § 1927) or him as a pro se litigant (indirectly through 28 U.S.C. § 1651) — but, and this is important, it’s virtually unheard of for a non-prisoner to be restrained under § 1651 except on a district-by-district basis. And since the Orange One is now in orange-juice country, he’s just not going to be the plaintiff in SDNY all that often; he’ll instead be in the Southern District of Florida.

  24. says

    Oops, shorthanded something I probably shouldn’t have:

    SDNY = US District Court for the Southern District of New York (principally Manhattan and Westchester County).

    Other parts of NYC fall in the Eastern District. In that sense, New York and DC are unique: They’re the only major cities that fall in more than one district. There are enough “it’s really still DC” things in the Northern District of Virginia and the District of Maryland that it gets really fun — for example, the Patent and Trademark Office is in NDVa, so a lot of trademark disputes in which someone is objecting to a PTO administrative ruling end up there, even though it’s “still DC.”

  25. wzrd1 says

    Jaws, as the case is in New York court and not the SDNY, but a state matter, first appeals are in New York and the appeal is being brought by him. So, is the appeal considered a continuation of the initial case by the court or a subsequent litigation brought by Trump? If the former, vexatious litigation might be problematic, depending upon the verbiage in the statute, if the latter, it’s a possibility – especially if they bring the same weak tea brought in the case and especially in the election fraud cases.
    Now, if he tried to go federal, which would also be problematic, as the case is a state case and not advanced to a state supreme court or appellate court, he’d of course file in the district of his residence. I’m around 4 sigma certain that a federal district court would reject the case as well.

    From a PR perspective, I’d be politician whispering, “any successful appeals will generate a headline GOP forces the courts to declare rape legal in New York, enjoy the riots”.
    Then, once an appeal is filed, start the whisper campaign. I’m not all that adverse to imminent lawless action against someone who already tried to use that as a weapon.
    As much as GOP leadership types love to blather about “this is war”, not a one has the stomach for smelling actual smoke.

  26. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    I’ve seen it pointed out that this isn’t the only woman who has accused The Orange One of assaulting them.
    It’s always easier to succeed if someone else has done it before you.

  27. says

    Wzrd1 @ 29:

    I’m afraid you’re mistaken on the premise. It is in the federal court; it is a federal court that is deciding a matter under New York state law. This is far from unusual — it’s one of the features of American law that’s most confusing to everyone else. If I recall correctly, the case was originally filed by Ms Carroll in New York state court and removed to federal court by Trump on grounds of diversity (28 U.S.C. § 1332: all parties citizens of different states and enough at issue, presently $75k, plus a few other curlicues like the “forum defendant rule” that were not relevant here) and other, unusual, grounds that were later rejected — but one condition establishing federal jurisdiction was enough. What this means is that from the moment the case was removed from state court, it cannot count as or be used as part of the predicate for determining that someone was a “vexatious litigant” — because “vexatious litigant” rules are to protect the courts and their orderly process, not the public at large/in general.

    That said, an appeal is a continuation of the existing matter. Merely pursuing an appeal (whether one was the plaintiff or the defendant below) cannot make one a “vexatious litigant.” It might make the appeal itself frivolous, and subject that party and its counsel to sanctions for pursuing a frivolous appeal (Fed. R. App. Proc. 38 and corresponding rules in every state including New York), but those sanctions are limited to a monetary award and to that specific appeal. And they’re never sufficient, either to deter future misconduct by those counsel/that party or to compensate the other side for the non-attorneys’-fee costs of fighting back against a frivolous appeal.

    And because the rest of your comment rests on that incorrect premise, it would be inappropriate for me to respond.

  28. R. L. Foster says

    Trump will never pay a penny out-of-pocket to cover the fine. He’ll issue ten thousand worthless NFTs at $100 each and his diehard supporters will scoop them up in a matter of minutes. Then, a month or two later, he’ll do it again.

  29. wzrd1 says

    Jaws @ 28, thanks. I was wracking my brain to recall the other term, frivolous. Perhaps, it’s my blood pressure, as that’s a common enough word it shouldn’t have escaped me (doctor sat on a refill for beta blocker for a week).
    Wasn’t certain, which is why I asked about the continuing case vs an appeal being a new case. Somehow, I missed the ruling when he applied for federal, I thought it’d have been rejected on most grounds, which it seems were rejected, but had enough others that you listed to prevail.
    Circling back on frivolous claims, I seem to recall some attorneys referred to their bar for discipline by the courts over Trump’s insane election claims. But, hitting the wallet hurts far more, as disciplinary boards can be rather lax in some areas, regardless of profession.
    Thanks for the good information and corrections.

    SQB @ 30, he’ll likely divert some of the superpac donations to pay the award and fund raise like the world’s going to end without ten times more brought in.

  30. says

    @31: Sadly, at least two of the election-denial attorneys have prevailed in disciplinary proceedings in Texas. And Eastman is likely to prevail at least in part; California changed its rules in 2018 to largely match the rest of the nation (with one exception), meaning that there’s almost no precedent on interpretation that the California authorities pay attention to (they’ve explicitly rejected decisions from other states interpreting the same now-adopted rules as precedent — not even persuasive precedent). Which should tell you why I could never legitimately be held in contempt of the organized bar or the respective state supreme courts†: I hold them pretty uniformly beneath contempt. “Self-regulating profession” necessarily implies “more than lip service, scapegoating, and discrimination,” doesn’t it?

    † A technicality that reveals a lot and will be a complete surprise to almost all non-Americans and non-lawyers: Lawyers are entirely regulated by their respective state supreme courts — even those lawyers who never do anything in state court (e.g., lawyers who focus on patent, copyright, immigration, bankruptcy, military, federal taxation, federal contracting… there’s a long list that’s exclusively federal). And most state supreme courts are elected; sometimes it’s formally “nonpartisan” but that’s at best an illusion and usually worse (when all of a state’s elected federal officials from one party endorse a “nonpartisan” candidate, and the remainder endorse the “nonpartisan” opponent, That’s A Hint).
    One is admitted to practice before federal courts only after being admitted to some state’s bar. Even if it’s a bar far, far away, having nothing whatsoever to do with the matters before that federal court… but state-court-admission issues still arise (like California’s notorious “three-strikes” rule — in any five-year period, for courts within the state including federal trial and immigration courts, the third attempt to be admitted for a specific case will be rejected pending admission to the state bar — that kept me from appearing in several matters 15-20 years ago because I had already appeared in two from half the nation away).

  31. GerrardOfTitanServer says

    […] our legal system fails […] can lose in Civil court yet not be convicted criminally. Time to look at changing laws […]

    So… do you want to change the burden of evidence standards for all civil court cases? Or just civil court cases for rape? Or do you want to reduce the burden of evidence in criminal court for all cases? Or just rape criminal court cases? I really think you haven’t thought this through at all, and this just reinforces my belief that you need to read a civics 101 book. That someone can be found civilly liable and not found criminally guilty is a feature, not a bug.

  32. StevoR says

    @ ^ GerrardOfTitanServer : A feature for who? The rapists.

    Of course as you know I’m Aussie not American so I’m guessing civics here would be different to where you are but letting criminals go free and justice get very clearly NOT seen to be done seems a huge bug and incitement to vigilanteeism to me.

    I’m suggesting that, yes, we at least change systems from ones that don’t work in delivering justice to those that might do. Also that we do look at reforms that make it harder for rapists and other crooks to walk away and easier to convict them. Yes, in cases of sexual assault where there’s a known bias and rigging against rape survivors lets change that – including the burden of proof from disbelieving to believing victims. I’ve already made several suggestions here and elsewhere and what we might do and dropping the respect for laws and systems that do NOT deserve respect and do deserve criticism and changing seems a basic starting point.

    Changing from the adverserial better-lawyer-wins to a European non-adverserial investigatory system also seems like an idea worth at least considering. Are France, Germany, Japan, etc .. “anarchies” in your eyes? Do they maybe run their own relevant civics courses on theri systems that work there too?

    PS. Mano Singham has given the Ex-Prez an apt new miniker here :

    Albeit it isn’t a criminal conviction as pointed out in comments there so .. known sex offender Trump? Proven sex offender Trump as sugegsted by #9 Oggie: Mathom there?

  33. wzrd1 says

    GerrardOfTitanServer, how odd you mention burden of proof, which is rather bedrock of law in the US, while ignoring the statute of limitations on the crime being shorter than the statute of limitations on the civil matter for the same crime.
    So, after 5 years, is the victim unraped or something or has a crime of great violence been committed and we give them a free pass if they evade prosecution for any reason and well, money makes every harm better? Guess if a statute of limitations existed for murder, a civil award would make me undead too.
    Or perhaps, we need to revive citizens vigilance committees.

  34. says

    Wzrd1 @35:

    Having been in the belly of the beast as long as I have (as a commanding officer in my first profession, I was the cop, prosecutor, judge, jury… and executioner, at least of careers; and having been a Member of a court martial for a potentially capital offense; and having then gone to law school):

    No to mob/”general public” control over individual matters. Call them vigilance committees. Call them what you will. I call them “lynch mobs,” and they always devolve toward disproportionately going after the Other. However genteel they are; however politely they describe their deeprooted disdain for newcomers, for those who don’t share their religion, for those whose livelihoods revolve around something they disdain — it’s still bigotry. That the legal system as we know it has flaws that desperately need addressing is beyond dispute. Having been professionally interested in societies with “alternatives,” I can’t and won’t accept mob rule — 06 Jan 2021, Charlottesville, and Emmitt Till are the inevitable result (just give it enough time and creative rhetoric).

  35. Silentbob says

    … The let’s throw all the laws in the bin guys are the ones who attempted an insurrection. Don’t be one of them.

  36. wzrd1 says

    Jaws @ 36, yeah, the Star Chamber had just as good a history.
    I think you might’ve caught my suggestion that was waiting for GerrardOfTitanServer’s response. As civil statute of limitation is so much longer, perhaps we should reevaluate the current criminal statute of limitations on violent crimes that are dreadfully too short.
    Ouch on the court martial. Especially one with the potential to rate capital punishment. Most civilians don’t appreciate how many offenses that aren’t capital offenses are in the military and how easy it is for a service member to end up with a needle in their arm.
    All I can say is, better you than me. I was the second chance NCO, when all were ready to give up and discharge a soldier, I got him to see if I could rehabilitate him. Over the decade of that, I only lost two, one to a drug screening, the other I actually recommended discharge for. For quite a few, having them with added responsibilities was effective, up to and including presenting at our command and staff meetings.
    All, while still training the rest of the men in both common core tasks and their medical skills. So, they might be doing surgical airways, a half hour later, land navigation at a senior skill level. I only had one able to learn how to call accurate 10 digit grids with a map and compass like I did.
    My best honed skill: knowing to call a professional when needed, rather than delaying and making things worse.

    Well, off to try to sleep. Been feeling a bit poorly, a snafu with getting my beta blockers refilled has me a week without BP control and thyroid drifting out of range, wreaking havoc overall on me. I’ll have to have a discussion with both the resident who is my primary and pharmacist, as each has now twice shown the sense of urgency on refilling life sustaining medications that one would normally associate with a cactus.

  37. wzrd1 says

    Silentbob, while some rare laws do need to go into the bin, most defective or less than functional ones can be adjusted by the legislature fairly easily.
    As an example, the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the Army from exercising police powers within the US absent an emergency that’s rendered the civilian government in a a region incapable of functioning (think natural disaster or large insurrection), was modified by the 2022 defense fiscal authorization act to include the Space Force, US Navy and US Marine Corps, as all three previously were not prohibited from doing so under the act. No need of a repeal to alter an existing law to fit reality better.
    Case in point #33, everything save lengthening the statute of limitations on the crime of rape to match, at a minimum, the length of the civil offense was suggested in a rather hyperbole ridden question.

  38. birgerjohansson says

    Going off on a tangent.
    When debating about Rapey Mc Rapeface out in the unprotected social media the trolls will do their utmost to derail the discussion.
    I tracked down an example from years ago how it might sound, with Eli Bosnick playing the role of the troll from hell.

  39. birgerjohansson says

    As Sweden was not a member of NATO the only times soldiers were abroad was during UN missions, tyoically in third world countries.
    When separated from “mainstream” Swedish society, some coteries developed very misogynic and/or racist behaviours. While not against law, the top brass decided to crack down on that crap, which I find commendable. This does not require legal knowledge, just what we might call an understanding of common decency.
    As personnel on UN missions were subjected to stronger vetting than others, I am happy that we did not get the kind of scandals we have seen in some UN forces from other nations.

  40. wzrd1 says

    birgerjohansson, I’m reminded of my unit’s deployment to Bosnia some years back.
    We lost one man to suicide, after his throat was cut, he allegedly shot himself with his M4 in the head. An impressive feat for a former Marine turned Army. One of my medics got into legal trouble for trafficking of military supplies and small arms, attempting to funnel them back home. One Command Sergeant Major committed suicide, just before a search warrant was to be served in regards to human trafficking, the man who “suicided” was assisting in the investigation of him and a handful of others. A few others ended up quietly serving lengthy prison terms for trafficking. Alas, I was at a different location than the headquarters, otherwise my medic and my friend from our S1 would’ve avoided prison and death, respectively.
    So, vetting was and remains an excellent idea! As, far too many people seem to not have even the barest of acquaintances with common decency.

  41. says

    Just a side note on statutes of limitations, since they’ve been mentioned several times:

    Once upon a time, statutes of limitations were imposed on about an equal basis between “allow alleged violators (civil or criminal) to get on with their lives” and “ensure that the kind of evidence necessary to prove a violation, or defend against accusation of a violation, remains fresh and uncorrupted and otherwise valid.” Purposely avoiding the types of violations in this thread, these combined rationales are behind the extremely short statutes of limitations for some violations; for example, an employment discrimination claim must be presented to an agency with jurisdiction over that type of claim within four months (!) of learning of the “adverse employment action” — even if the facts that would put a reasonable person on notice of potential discrimination don’t become known for years thereafter. At the time these short statutes of limitations were adopted, there was a belief that (a) one cannot actually and properly remedy discrimination that’s long in the past and (b) that all the evidence is going to be “he said/she said” recollections in memories and will go stale on the kinds of nuance necessary to properly resolve matters.

    But (b) is essentially no longer true. That short SOL was adopted prior to the rise of dedicated HR functions (and, in fact, caused the rise of dedicated HR functions), with the emphasis on standardized personnel files and evaluations and such. And it neglects industry-specific coding (let’s just not get into what an officer evaluation that says leadership performance “demonstrated satisfactory grasp of leadership principles” really means for that officer, who will never be promoted again…) that appears in written records now for all to see. At least after completing the discovery process!

    More-recent appreciations of SOLs — as explicitly reflected in court opinions and even in legislative hearings — have shifted very strongly away from the “let accused violators get on with their lives” rationale. That hasn’t changed the actual SOLs; it has instead changed application of equitable tolling rules (the statute of limitations was running during period x because the defendant was engaged in a massive coverup and hiding the private notes being provided to promotion boards from candidates, which has been A Problem more than once).

    Returning to the actual controversy that began this thread, this distinction is strongly reflected in the jury’s actual verdict. It was about evidence, and the fading of memories, and the presumed alteration of perceptions, and such; Ms Carroll could not testify now with adequate certainty (at least so far as the jury was concerned) regarding her perceptions of years ago in a way that established a specific element of one violation, but that specific element was not relevant to another violation. And this is a significant problem in other circumstances; consider the horrific problems raised by various memory-deficit syndromes combined with potential undue influence.

    In short, it’s much more about evidence than anything else. And we have more and different varieties of evidence now than we did in 1927 (which, if I recall correctly, was when the former NY SOL for “rape in the second degree” had been established as of the time of The Incident), not to mention differing appreciation of how to trust (or not) personal accounts.

  42. StevoR says

    @37 & 38. Silentbob : ” The let’s throw all the laws in the bin guys are the ones who attempted an insurrection. Don’t be one of them.”

    Wrong. The regressive Trump cultists of the self-proclaimed if utterly hypocritical law’nórder party were the ones behind the insurrection. They actually like the laws and currnet legal system as they are just made even more backwards and NEVER applied to them or their cult leader. They’ve rigged it and keep rigging it more in their favour and that’s what you want to keep and hold sacred in undeserved, unquestioning respect?

    Arguing for peaceful if radical legal reforms up to and including a change from a broken British-American adversarial system to a European investigatory model without some key flawed features of the Better & usually better paid Lawyer wins system is light-years away from taking part in an attempt to overthrow Democracy. How are they even remotely comparable?

    Nobody here is pro-rapist but your childlike, “let’s throw all the laws in the bin to catch more rapists”, will backfire like you could never possibly imagine.

    Strawman fallacy. I’m not saying “throw all the laws in the bin” – I’m saying reform the system so that it actually delivers Justice rather than letting rapists walk free and, yes, let’s consider changing from the British to the European criminal justice system with their proven and effective investigatory system. Are European and other nations using that system less just and has reform or not having the adverserial model “backfired” in places like France, Italy, Japan? Not saying their systems are perfect – Japan for instance, still has the death penalty. However I am saying we shouldn’t make a sacred cow of a system that is known to be horribly flawed and unjust especially in the area of sexual assault. We should question and reform our legal system and consider if its worth changing it because hey, maybe it is. That’s definitely NOT the same as “chucking laws in the bin.”

    Nor do I think its “child-like” especially given that its young children who generally accept the word of authority and religious figures on the “because I say so and its how we do things and tradition” basis. How is saying let’s actually examine the Justice system and challenge it and see if we can find better alternatives “child-like”huh?

    Sure I’ve linked this before but see :

    Then ask yourself if maybe that model might be an imrpovemnet on the USA’s one and whether other changes and reforms to the current system amight be a good idea.

    As for your linked comment #16. with the Thomas More quote and the special pleading I don’t see any relevance to what I’ve been saying and arguing here. How is saying we need to reform the way rape surivivors are treated and how the court system does NOT work for them but does for the perpetrators “special pleading” exactly?

    Thomas More was a (fictionalised here) religious Catholic extremist whose talk there invokes the non-existent supernatural and, yet again, making legal reforms and changes even radical ones like a shift to a nonadverserial model of criminal justice is not “chopping down” all the laws.

  43. wzrd1 says

    StevoR, if my roof is leaking, I don’t tear the damned thing off when it’s going to rain and replace it afterward. I patch the leak as best that I can and once it stops raining, I repair it.
    The same is true of our laws, as nothing sure as hell doesn’t beat having something. Don’t believe that, try having nothing to eat for the rest of the day and tell us all how much more full you are after consuming nothing, rather than something.

    Huh, someone elsewhere, on another site had mentioned that Trump, while given that photograph he incorrectly identified the defendant as his wife, wears reading glasses. So rare that has been, I’m fairly certain that I’ve never saw him wearing them, as he apparently even dictated his tweets, rather than be seen wearing his reading glasses.
    Can’t fathom that nonsense!
    I’ll admit this is novel, unfathomable shallowness.