Carroll receives $5m in defamation case against Trump

NEW YORK, Jul 15 (INS): Writer E Jean Carroll has successfully collected more than $5.6 million (interest included) awarded to her in her 2023 sexual abuse and defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump, with the Supreme Court declining to entertain his appeal.

The payment, which represents the initial $5 million jury award plus accumulated interest, was officially disbursed to Carroll and her legal team from a court-held escrow account where it had been maintained during the appeals process.

Trump's appeal timeline started in May 2023 when a New York jury awarded E Jean Carroll $5 million in damages. Trump immediately places the funds into a court-controlled registry (escrow) to freeze them during his appeals.

From 2023 to early 2026 Trump spends nearly three years fighting the verdict through the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals and formatting petitions for the highest court.

During early 2026 to June 2026, the Supreme Court repeatedly delayed, scheduled and rescheduled his petition 15 separate times.

On June 29, the Supreme Court officially declined to hear the case and, therefore, in July a Federal judge orders the court registry to finally release the $5.63 million (initial award plus accrued interest) directly to Carroll.

The US Supreme Court declining to hear Trump’s appeal of the civil verdict effectively cleared the way for US District Judge Lewis A Kaplan to order the immediate payout.

Carroll celebrates

In a statement, Carroll’s lead attorney, Roberta Kaplan, confirmed the transaction, stating, “Today, we are pleased to report that she has received the damages payment the jury awarded her as a result of that verdict.” Carroll also celebrated the victory publicly, thanking her legal team and writing in a blog post, “This win is for every woman in the world!”

The 2023 civil trial stemmed from allegations that Trump sexually abused Carroll in a Manhattan luxury department store dressing room in 1996 and subsequently defamed her when she came forward publicly in 2019.

While a unanimous nine-person federal jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, Trump has consistently denied the allegations, maintaining he is innocent and attempting multiple last-minute legal filings to block or delay the payment.

How the $83.3 million case is on a completely separate track

Though this case is over, Trump’s legal liabilities regarding Carroll are far from over. He remains locked in a separate appeal over a staggering $83.3 million defamation judgment awarded to Carroll by a different Manhattan jury in 2024, a case his defence attorneys have vowed to take all the way back to the Supreme Court if necessary

. While the $5 million case (now finished) was about Trump’s personal comments made after his presidency, the $83.3 million case (ongoing) is about defamatory statements Trump made in 2019 while he was sitting in the White House. Trump’s lawyers argue he has "absolute presidential immunity" for actions taken while in office.

Because this raises entirely different constitutional questions, his attorneys are prepared to push this second case through the appeals courts and directly back onto the Supreme Court's docket.

The jury system in capitalist US

The US judicial system is quite unique compared to most other countries—especially those that rely on civil law systems (like continental Europe) or other common law systems (like the UK, where civil juries are now extremely rare).

In the United States, juries are used extensively in both criminal and civil (non-criminal) trials. This is a right guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution for federal cases, and by State constitutions for State-level cases.

In a US civil lawsuit like E. Jean Carroll’s, the jury decides the liability. First, a jury of everyday citizens hears the evidence and decides if the defendant is legally responsible (liable) for the harm claimed.

Then the jury decides the money (the aAward). That is, if they find the defendant liable, they are also tasked with deciding exactly how much money the defendant must pay to compensate the victim. This calculated financial penalty is called the jury award or damages award.

The judge acts as the "referee" who manages the trial, explains the law to the jury, and ultimately signs the final judgment to make the jury's financial award legally binding.

So, when the reports say "the jury awarded her $5 million," it means a group of ordinary citizens sat in a federal courtroom, looked at the evidence, and decided that $5 million was the appropriate amount of money Trump had to pay for the damage he caused

However, in a standard US criminal trial, the labour is divided into two distinct parts:

The jury decides the verdict. That is, the jury’s only job is to look at the evidence and decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. They do not choose the punishment.

The judge decides the sentence: If the jury returns a "guilty" verdict, the jury's job is done and they are dismissed. The judge then schedules a completely separate hearing to determine the sentence (jail time, probation, fines, etc.) based on legal guidelines and statutes.

The major exception is the death penalty. In most US States, if the prosecution is seeking the death penalty, the Constitution requires that a jury—not a judge—make the final decision on whether the defendant receives execution or life in prison.

Why jury trials are not possible in India

There are no jury trials in India tofay. The system was permanently abolished. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, India transitioned entirely to a "bench trial" system, where professional judges decide both the facts and the law.

The jury system—which was a colonial import brought by the British—gradually collapsed in India for several critical reasons:

The famous catalyst: The Nanavati case (1959) The final nail in the coffin for the Indian jury system was the highly sensational trial of KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra. Commander Nanavati, a handsome and decorated Indian Navy officer, was put on trial for shooting and killing his wife's lover, Prem Ahuja. Despite overwhelming factual evidence of premeditated murder, the jury acquitted Nanavati, finding him "not guilty". The jury had been heavily swayed by aggressive, sympathetic media campaigns (especially by the tabloid Blitz) and public emotion, completely ignoring the legal facts of the case. The High Court quickly threw out the jury's verdict as perverse, and the scandal exposed just how easily lay juries could be manipulated.
Deep-seated social and communal biases: Unlike in the US or UK, India's incredibly diverse social landscape made objective jury selection nearly impossible. Lawmakers and the Law Commission of India realized that in a society highly stratified by caste, religion, language, and community, jurors were highly susceptible to subconscious (or conscious) biases. It was incredibly difficult to find an "impartial" panel of peers who wouldn't side with an accused person simply because they belonged to the same community.
Susceptibility to bribes and intimidation: Unlike professional judges who have security, career accountability, and legal protections, ordinary citizens serving on a jury were highly vulnerable. Powerful defendants, politicians, or local mobs could easily bribe, threaten, or terrorize lay jurors to secure a favorable verdict.
Extreme backlogs and inefficiency: The Indian judicial system is notorious for its massive backlog of cases. Organizing jury trials—which requires summoning citizens, conducting jury selection, explaining complex legal concepts to untrained lay people, and dealing with hung juries—is incredibly slow and expensive.

For these reasons, the Law Commission of India recommended dismantling the system. Today, the Indian judiciary places its trust strictly in professionally trained judges rule strictly on codified law, evidence and precedent, free from public emotion.

What is a jury

It is not easy for a common man in India to comprehend what it involves. Once a Chief Miinister of an Indian State was put behind bars at the instance of the then Prime Minister for having said publcly that India needs people's court.

A jury (US) is a group of impartial citizens chosen and sworn to hear evidence in a legal trial and deliver an official verdict based on the facts presented. They determe a defendant's guilt in criminal cases or liability in civil cases, the system ensuring everyday citizens participate in the justice system. In civil cases they also decide the award.