E. Jean Carroll’s Defamation Trial: A Chronicle of Alina Habba’s Admonishments by Judge Lewis Kaplan
In the heart of Manhattan’s bustling courtrooms, a captivating legal drama is unfolding, revolving around the defamation trial of former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, who has accused former President Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s. The trial has garnered immense media attention, but it is the courtroom exchanges between Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, and the presiding judge, Lewis Kaplan, that have truly captured the public’s imagination.
A Clash of Wills: Judge Kaplan’s Impatience with Habba’s Conduct
Throughout the trial, Judge Kaplan has repeatedly taken Habba to task for her conduct in the courtroom. These admonishments have ranged from minor procedural missteps to more egregious violations of legal norms, creating a palpable tension in the courtroom.
1. “I Make the Rulings Here, Not the Lawyers”: Kaplan Asserts His Authority
In one instance, Habba interrupted Carroll’s testimony by announcing her intention to address an issue during cross-examination. Judge Kaplan swiftly interjected, reminding Habba that he, not the lawyers, makes the rulings in the courtroom. He instructed her to “sit down” when she attempted to press her point, leaving no room for argument.
2. “We’re Going to Do It My Way”: Kaplan Imposes His Rules for Evidence Presentation
Another clash occurred when Habba began cross-examining Carroll using her pre-trial deposition without providing a hard copy to the judge. Kaplan, visibly frustrated, emphasized that the proceedings would be conducted according to his rules. He demanded the page and line number of the deposition in question and instructed Habba to refrain from reading it until he had reviewed it, demonstrating his unwavering control over the courtroom.
3. “Elaine’s Restaurant, Where It’s Still Hard to Get a Seat”: Kaplan Corrects Habba’s Factual Error
Habba’s line of questioning took an unexpected turn when she attempted to discredit Carroll’s social life in the 1980s by mentioning Elaine’s restaurant, a popular Manhattan eatery. However, Kaplan interjected, pointing out that Elaine’s had closed in 2011. Habba’s attempt to argue that she was referring to the 1990s was met with Kaplan’s deadpan remark, “That may be on account of it being closed,” highlighting the importance of accuracy in legal proceedings.
4. “Neither Do I”: Judge Kaplan’s Disinterest in Habba’s Representations
During cross-examination, Habba asked Carroll about the title of her 1985 book, “Female Difficulties.” However, Carroll’s lawyer objected, stating that she did not understand the relevance of the question. Kaplan echoed this sentiment, stating, “Neither do I,” signaling his lack of interest in Habba’s line of questioning.
5. “If You Want to Make Representations, You Can Be Called as a Witness”: Kaplan Rejects Habba’s Attempts to Testify
Habba’s efforts to introduce a tweet that was not yet in evidence were met with a stern rebuke from Kaplan. He reminded her that she could not read from a document that was not officially admitted into the record. When Habba protested, Kaplan reiterated his stance, stating that if she wanted to make representations, she could be called as a witness, emphasizing the proper procedures for introducing evidence.
6. “Guess What? You May Not Read from a Document That’s Not in Evidence”: Kaplan’s Anger at Habba’s Procedural Violation
Kaplan’s patience reached its limit when Habba attempted to read from the tweet, which was not in evidence, during her questioning of Carroll. He called a break, during which he instructed Habba to refresh her memory on the proper procedure for introducing evidence, highlighting the importance of following established courtroom protocols.
7. “Why Don’t You Do It in the Normal Way?”: Kaplan’s Frustration with Habba’s Lack of Preparation
After the break, Habba again tried to refer to the tweet without properly introducing it. Kaplan expressed his exasperation, asking why Habba could not follow the standard procedure of showing the document to Carroll, asking if she recognized it, and then establishing its authenticity, underscoring the need for proper preparation and adherence to legal procedures.
8. “I Ruled on That in the Sidebar”: Kaplan’s Adherence to Prior Rulings
Kaplan had previously ruled in a sidebar discussion that Habba could not question Carroll about the believability of Trump’s alleged sexual assault. Despite this ruling, Habba proceeded to ask questions on this topic. Kaplan promptly struck the answer from the record and reminded Habba that she had ignored his ruling, demonstrating his commitment to upholding the court’s decisions.
9. “You Don’t ‘Introduce’ Evidence That’s Already in Evidence”: Kaplan Corrects Habba’s Terminology
Habba mistakenly referred to the introduction of an exhibit that was already in evidence. Kaplan corrected her, explaining that she did not need to introduce it again but rather simply show the exhibit that was already admitted, emphasizing the importance of using precise legal terminology.
10. “Argumentative and Inappropriate”: Kaplan’s Disapproval of Habba’s Questioning
Kaplan sustained an objection to Habba’s question about Carroll’s media appearances, deeming it argumentative and inappropriate, underscoring the need for questions to be relevant and non-inflammatory.
11. “May We Have a Sidebar, Please?”: Kaplan Denies Habba’s Request to Revisit a Ruled-Out Topic
Habba’s attempt to revisit a topic that had been barred by Kaplan during a sidebar conversation was met with a curt refusal, highlighting the judge’s authority to control the scope and direction of the trial.
12. “Don’t Even Start”: Kaplan Warns Habba Against Asking Improper Questions
Habba’s line of questioning regarding Carroll’s possession of an unlicensed gun prompted Kaplan to interrupt and caution her against asking questions that required Carroll to draw legal conclusions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to proper legal procedure.
13. “You’re Running the Repeat Key Too Often, Ms. Habba”: Kaplan’s Criticism of Habba’s Repetitive Questions
Kaplan grew weary of Habba’s repeated questioning of Carroll about her associations with individuals who were critical of Trump. He admonished her for “running the repeat key too often” and instructed her to move on, signaling his impatience with repetitive and irrelevant questioning.
14. “We’re Way Outside”: Kaplan Puts a Stop to Irrelevant Questioning
In the final exchange of the day, Habba asked Carroll about her friendship with George Conway, a lawyer and vocal critic of Trump. Kaplan deemed the question irrelevant and outside the scope of the direct examination, prompting Habba to protest. However, Kaplan firmly overruled her objection, ending the day’s proceedings, demonstrating his resolve in maintaining the focus of the trial on relevant matters.
Conclusion: A Trial Marked by Judicial Scrutiny and Procedural Clashes
The E. Jean Carroll defamation trial has been a captivating spectacle, marked by a series of clashes between Alina Habba and Judge Lewis Kaplan. Kaplan’s admonishments of Habba have highlighted the importance of adhering to proper courtroom procedures and respecting the authority of the judge. As the trial continues, it remains to be seen whether Habba will adjust her approach or face further scrutiny from the court. The outcome of this trial has the potential to set a precedent for future defamation cases and could have a significant impact on the legal landscape surrounding sexual assault allegations.