Fact Check: In dissent, Judge Steven Menashi, a Trump appointee, said the district court should have allowed the defense to present evidence.

Fact Check: "In dissent, Judge Steven Menashi, a Trump appointee, said the district court should have allowed the defense to present evidence."

What We Know

Judge Steven Menashi, appointed by former President Donald Trump, expressed dissent in a recent ruling regarding the E. Jean Carroll case. In his dissent, he argued that the district court should have permitted the defense to present evidence that could potentially demonstrate Trump's belief that Carroll's lawsuit was politically motivated. Specifically, Menashi contended that this evidence was crucial to establish that Trump did not act with actual malice when he allegedly defamed Carroll (Washington Examiner, ABC News).

The dissent was part of a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied Trump's bid to appeal a $5 million judgment against him in the Carroll case. Menashi's dissent was notable as it highlighted concerns over the admissibility of character evidence presented during the trial, which he believed could have influenced the jury's perception of Trump's intent (Law.com, DNYUZ).

Analysis

The claim that Judge Menashi stated the district court should have allowed the defense to present evidence is accurate and supported by multiple sources. His dissent explicitly called for the inclusion of evidence that could show Trump's motivations and beliefs regarding the lawsuit, which he argued were relevant to the question of actual malice in defamation cases (ABC News, Washington Examiner).

However, it is essential to assess the reliability of the sources reporting on this dissent. The Washington Examiner and ABC News are generally considered credible news outlets, though they may exhibit some political bias. The Washington Examiner tends to lean conservative, which could influence its framing of judicial decisions involving Trump appointees. Conversely, ABC News is a mainstream outlet that strives for objectivity, but it can also reflect a liberal bias in its coverage (Law.com, DNYUZ).

Moreover, the dissent itself, as reported in legal analyses, emphasizes Menashi's concerns about the implications of the evidentiary rulings made by the district court. His argument suggests a judicial philosophy that values the presentation of all relevant evidence in trials, particularly in high-stakes cases involving public figures (PDF G Supreme Court of The United States, The Prudent Judge).

Conclusion

Needs Research. While the claim regarding Judge Menashi's dissent is substantiated by credible sources, further investigation into the context and implications of his dissent is necessary. Understanding the broader legal principles at play, as well as the potential biases of the reporting sources, will provide a more comprehensive view of the situation. Additionally, examining the reactions from legal experts and the implications of the dissent on future cases could offer valuable insights.

Sources

1. The Prudent Judge – Hon. Steven Menashi
2. PDF G Supreme Court of The United States
3. Appeals court denies Trump bid to appeal $5 million E. Jean Carroll ruling
4. Full 2nd Circuit Won't Review $5M Judgment Against Trump in E. Jean ...
5. Appeals court rejects Trump's bid to challenge $5 million E ...
6. Appeals court rejects Trump's bid to challenge $5 million E. Jean ...
7. PDF MENASHI Circuit Judge, joined by PARK Circuit Judge dissenting from en banc
8. 'No one can have any confidence': Trump-appointed judges go off ...