Fact Check: Judge Steven Menashi, a Trump appointee, dissented in the appeals court ruling, arguing that the district court should have allowed evidence regarding Trump's belief that Carroll's lawsuit was politically motivated.

Fact Check: Judge Steven Menashi's Dissent in E. Jean Carroll Case

What We Know

In a recent ruling, a federal appeals court declined to rehear President Donald Trump's appeal regarding a $5 million verdict awarded to E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of sexual assault and defamation. The decision was made by an 8-2 vote, with two judges dissenting: Steven Menashi and Michael Park, both appointed by Trump. In their dissent, Menashi and Park argued that the district court should have allowed evidence suggesting that Trump believed Carroll's lawsuit was politically motivated (BBC, ABC News).

Menashi's dissent specifically stated that the refusal to allow this evidence "sanctioned striking departures" from legal precedent, indicating a significant concern about the evidentiary rulings made in the case (BBC, Law and Crime).

Analysis

The dissent by Judge Menashi highlights a critical aspect of the case: the interpretation of evidence regarding Trump's motivations. Menashi contended that the jury should have been allowed to consider Trump's belief that Carroll's lawsuit was a politically motivated fabrication. This perspective suggests a potential bias in the handling of the evidence presented during the trial (ABC News, Law and Crime).

However, the majority opinion of the court did not agree with this assessment, indicating that the evidence in question was not deemed relevant or admissible under the circumstances of the case. The dissenting judges' views, while valid in the context of judicial debate, reflect a minority opinion and do not alter the majority ruling (The Hill, Above the Law).

The reliability of the dissenting opinion can be questioned, as it comes from judges appointed by Trump, which may introduce a degree of bias in their interpretation of the case. Nevertheless, dissenting opinions are a standard part of judicial proceedings and can provide insight into alternative legal interpretations (PDF Menashi, Truth or Fake).

Conclusion

The claim that Judge Steven Menashi dissented in the appeals court ruling, arguing that the district court should have allowed evidence regarding Trump's belief that Carroll's lawsuit was politically motivated, is Partially True. While it accurately reflects Menashi's dissenting opinion, it does not capture the broader context of the court's majority ruling, which found that such evidence was not admissible. Thus, while the dissent exists and raises important questions about evidentiary standards, it does not represent the final legal outcome of the case.

Sources

1. Trump loses bid for appeals court to reconsider $5m loss ...
2. PDF MENASHI Circuit Judge, joined by PARK Circuit Judge dissenting from en banc
3. Second Circuit Declines To Let Trump Grab Carroll By The Process. Again.
4. Appeals court rejects Trump's bid to challenge $5 million E. Jean ...
5. Trump-appointed judges dissent in E. Jean Carroll case
6. Appeals court rejects Donald Trump's bid to overturn E. Jean Carroll ...
7. Appeals court rejects Trump's bid to challenge $5 million E. ...
8. Fact Check: In dissent, Judge Steven Menashi, a Trump appointee, said ...