Trump’s Supreme Court appeal targets #MeToo – Latest News
When the accusation is sexual assault or rape, the rights of the accused exit the window.
President Donald Trump is aware of that firsthand — and he’s asking the US Supreme Court to treatment it.
Prosecutors and plaintiffs’ attorneys can drag in character assassins who know nothing concerning the alleged assault, however as a substitute make their own claims — with out proof — that they too had been victims of the accused, typically years and even a long time earlier.
That’s what occurred to Trump within the E. Jean Carroll case, and why he’s interesting the jury’s resolution.
Last week, the justices delayed for the eleventh time answering whether or not they may take up E. Jean Carroll v. Trump.
A New York jury awarded Carroll $5 million in 2023 after discovering Trump accountable for sexually abusing her in a Bergdorf Goodman’s lingerie dressing room years earlier.
More From Betsy McCaughey
Court watchers speculate the justices are delaying till a companion case, additionally involving Trump and Carroll, weaves its approach up to them.
Whatever the explanation, it’s essential for the court docket to strike down the jury’s verdict — and halt this egregiously unfair character-assassination strategy.
Men accused of sexual assault have basically misplaced their proper to a truthful trial because of misguided adjustments to the Federal Rules of Evidence that Congress made in 1995 — solely for such circumstances.
The legislators kowtowed to the loopy notion that each girl who claims to be a sufferer of sexual assault is telling the reality and deserves to be hailed as a “survivor.”
Federal Rules 413, 414 and 415 permit prosecutors in legal circumstances, or the plaintiff’s lawyer in a civil case, to pull in previous accusers voicing their own grievances in opposition to the accused, no matter how unsubstantiated.
Their testimony is supposed to persuade a jury that the defendant has a “propensity” to sexually assault girls.
And when actual proof is missing, it makes swaying the jury a lot simpler.
Carroll couldn’t bear in mind what 12 months Trump supposedly assaulted her, by no means reported the incident to police, and couldn’t produce store cameras or witnesses who noticed it occur.
Though she boasted that she had Trump’s DNA on her costume, she declined in court docket to allow a DNA take a look at and moved to exclude DNA proof from the trial.
What’s her lawyer to do when there’s no proof to show her implausible declare?
Drag in “propensity” witnesses — in Trump’s case, Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff.
Leeds accused Trump of groping her on an airplane 37 years earlier, although she couldn’t bear in mind the exact date, the place she was flying or on what airline.
She might solely recall that Trump had his hand up her skirt.
Natasha Stoynoff claimed that in 2005, Trump all of the sudden grabbed her and kissed her with out her consent at Mar-a-Lago.
She, too, supplied no corroborating up to date proof of the alleged habits.
Trump’s attorneys are arguing that decrease courts ought to by no means have allowed the jury to listen to this inflammatory testimony.
None of it’s flattering, however none of it helps Carroll’s charge that Trump assaulted her in Bergdorf’s.
Get opinions and commentary from our columnists
Subscribe to our day by day Post Opinion publication!
Thanks for signing up!
In some circumstances, appellate judges are already appearing to curb the abuses attributable to Congress’ political correctness.
In 2024 the New York State Court of Appeals overruled Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction 4-3, as a result of the trial decide had allowed the prosecution to herald girls to discuss their own grievances in opposition to Weinstein.
The former film mogul didn’t get off free, however he bought a new trial.
Weinstein’s lawyer Arthur Aidala referred to as the ruling “a tremendous victory for every criminal defendant in the state of New York.”
But Judge Madeline Singas, one of the panel’s dissenters, argued that almost all’s resolution will “thwart the steady gains survivors of sexual violence have fought for in our criminal justice system.”
Singas insisted that “crimes of sexual violence are far more nuanced and complex than other crimes” and strict requirements of proof and proof “come at the expense and safety of women.”
Don’t fall for that leftist blather.
Every accused particular person, male or feminine, deserves a truthful trial earlier than a jury that’s introduced with precise proof — not a farrago of alleged previous misdeeds.
For nicely over a century, attorneys and judges nationwide have needed to adhere to the well-known Molineux precedent, set down in a well-known 1901 New York homicide trial.
It states that “the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged, and thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality.”
Sexual assault circumstances needs to be no exception.
The justices ought to strike down Carroll’s victory over Trump — and transfer previous one-sided Me-Too injustice.
Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York.
