U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan was not persuaded – to say the least – that Donald Trump deserved a new trial in the E. Jean Carroll sexual assault defamation case.

Trump’s attorneys, Alina Habba and John Hauer argued that new evidence mandated that they get a “re-do” in the courtroom. Kaplan essentially listed the reasons why this wasn’t true, and most of the evidence he cited went straight back to Trump’s own behavior.

Kaplan first noted that Trump continued to defame Carroll even as the trial went on – generally considered a bad idea in a defamation case. *Hat tip to Rawstory for pulling quotes:

“The jury in this case at least arguably was entitled, moreover, to conclude that Mr. Trump’s continued defamation of Ms. Carroll —even during the course of trial — in turn warranted a finding that he would not stop attacking Ms. Carroll unless faced with a significant deterrent.”

He still probably won’t stop attacking Carroll, and she likely won’t stop suing him. It is like two kids on swings going the opposite direction.

After noting that Trump was likely the most powerful man on Earth at the time and that Trump’s statements would deter other women from coming forward, Kaplan went back to discussing Trump’s behavior during the trial – it didn’t help him.

“Beyond his out-of-court statements disparaging Ms. Carroll during trial — many of which were introduced in evidence — the jury could have found that Mr. Trump’s demeanor and conduct in the courtroom itself put his hatred and disdain on full display.”

Hatred and disdain on display is a common theme found throughout Judge Kaplan’s opinion as outweighing any new evidence. Whatever new evidence might have been found, it couldn’t have been that strong. (They had extra years – as Trump was president – to discover evidence, after all.)

Kaplan then took a big bite out of Trump’s behind concerning Trump’s “in court” behavior, which – technically, isn’t evidence, but the jury can take it into consideration:

“Mr. Trump could be heard repeatedly complaining to his counsel about the proceedings, so much so that plaintiff’s counsel twice requested that the Court instruct him to stop. In particular, during Ms. Carroll’s testimony, the jury could have found, Mr. Trump could be heard making audible comments that Ms. Carroll’s testimony was false, that the proceedings were a ‘witch hunt’ and a ‘con job,’ and most notably, that his earlier statements disparaging Ms. Carroll were ‘true.'”

Trump’s assertion that his statements were “true” could be considered evidence if heard by the jury, and it likely could have been, given that the plaintiff’s lawyers noted the statements and demanded that Trump be instructed to stop.

“Most dramatically, mere minutes after plaintiff’s counsel began her closing argument, Mr. Trump conspicuously stood and walked out of the courtroom for no apparent reason save to evidence his disapproval, though he was present again when Court resumed later that morning and remained for his own counsel’s entire summation.”

This one is a little weird for the judge to bring up. If Trump wanted to leave – and that was his right in a civil trial – his attorneys could have asked for a recess. But doing so in the middle of the closing argument was likely meant to show disapproval or disbelief. It is likely the weakest of Kaplan’s justifications but could still impact the jury.

Regardless, Judge Kaplan took the motion for a new trial and pointed directly at Trump as part of the justification for denying the motion. The overwhelming evidence as to defamatory statements also played a role, as did the testimony regarding the encounter, but Trump didn’t help himself.

When it comes to his own behavior when angry, he rarely does.

****

Jason Miciak is Executive Editor of Political Flare and Editor at Large for Occupy Democrats, he can be reached at [email protected]